18-852 Ashraf v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A206 573 964 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 23rd day of July, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ BILAL ASHRAF, Petitioner, v. 18-852 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Richard W. Chen, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director; Matthew A. Connelly, 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 DENIED. Petitioner Bilal Ashraf, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks review of a March 1, 2018 decision of the BIA affirming a May 2, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ashraf’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ashraf, No. A 206 573 964 (B.I.A. Mar. 1, 2018), aff’g No. A 206 573 964 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 2, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility ruling, we have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s findings of fact under the substantial evidence standard. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). Under this standard, “[w]e treat factual findings as 2 ‘conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances . . . base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant,” the plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his statements or between his statements and other evidence, without regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). We “defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless . . . it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals