Asghar v. Sessions

16-3261 Asghar v. Sessions BIA Gordon-Uruakpa, IJ A077 643 048 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 9th day of January, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ALI ASGHAR, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-3261 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Usman B. Ahmad, Long Island City, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; John S. Hogan, 28 Assistant Director; Lindsay 29 Corliss, Trial Attorney, Office of 30 31 1 Immigration Litigation, U.S. 2 Department of Justice, Washington, 3 DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Ali Asghar, a native and citizen of Pakistan, 10 seeks review of an August 26, 2016, decision of the BIA that 11 affirmed an April 22, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge 12 (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of 13 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 14 (“CAT”). In re Ali Asghar, No. A077 643 048 (B.I.A. Aug. 26, 15 2016), aff’g No. A077 643 048 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 22, 16 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 17 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 18 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 19 the decision of the IJ as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus 20 the bases for denying relief that were not challenged 21 before, or affirmed by, the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 22 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 23 Accordingly, we do not address the IJ’s conclusion that 24 Asghar’s asylum application was untimely, on which the BIA 25 did not rely, or Asghar’s claimed fear of the Taliban, 2 1 which he abandoned. Id. The applicable standards of 2 review are well established. Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 3 F.3d 297, 306-07 (2d Cir. 2003), superseded by the REAL ID ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals