Ba v. Sessions

16-4190 Ba v. Sessions BIA Cheng, IJ A201 122 222 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 23rd day of April, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 OUMAR SAMBA BA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-4190 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Diana L. Castaneda, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; John S. Hogan, 27 Assistant Director; Robbin K. 28 Blaya, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Oumar Samba Ba, a native and citizen of 6 Mauritania, seeks review of a November 18, 2016, decision 7 of the BIA affirming a September 24, 2015, decision of an 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ba’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Oumar Samba Ba, 11 No. A 201 122 222 (B.I.A. Nov. 18, 2016), aff’g No. A 201 12 122 222 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 24, 2015). We assume 13 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 14 procedural history in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. 17 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The standards 18 of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); 19 Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165 (2d Cir. 2008). 20 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 21 circumstances,” base a credibility finding on “the 22 consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written 23 and oral statements . . ., the internal consistency of each 2 1 such statement, the consistency of such statements with 2 other evidence of record . . ., and any inaccuracies or 3 falsehoods in such ...

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