18-2532 Alexandre v. Garland BIA Mulligan, IJ A209 866 675 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 18th day of March, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: BARRINGTON D. PARKER, REENA RAGGI, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ JODE ALEXANDRE, Petitioner, v. 18-2532 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. 1 _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Hagit Muriel Elul, Esq., Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, New York, NY; 1Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted for former Attorney General William P. Barr as Respondent. Elizabeth Rieser-Murphy, Esq., The Legal Aid Society, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Nancy E. Friedman, Senior Litigation Counsel; Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED. Petitioner Jode Alexandre, a native and citizen of Haiti, seeks review of an August 15, 2018, decision of the BIA affirming a February 21, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Alexandre’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jode Alexandre, No. A 209 866 675 (B.I.A. Aug. 15, 2018), aff’g No. A 209 866 675 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Feb. 21, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 2 Cir. 2005). “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record . . . and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence. See Hong Fei Gao …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals