18-1321 Ba v. Barr BIA Hom, IJ A206 280 434 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 14th day of August, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 PETER W. HALL, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ABOUBACRY BA, AKA ABOUBAKRY BA, 14 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-1321 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 28 Attorney General; Anthony P. 1 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 2 Joanna L. Watson, Trial Attorney, 3 Office of Immigration Litigation, 4 United States Department of 5 Justice, Washington, DC. 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Aboubacry Ba, a native and citizen of 12 Mauritania, seeks review of an April 10, 2018, decision of 13 the BIA affirming an April 24, 2017, decision of an 14 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 15 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 16 (“CAT”). In re Aboubacry Ba, No. A206 280 434 (B.I.A. Apr. 17 10, 2018), aff’g No. A206 280 434 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 18 24, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 19 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 20 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 21 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA and do not reach the 22 IJ’s alternative corroboration finding that the BIA did not 23 review. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 24 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 2 1 Adverse Credibility 2 We review the agency’s adverse credibility determination 3 for substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong 4 Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 5 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 6 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 7 determination on the . . . consistency between the applicant’s 8 . . . written ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals