20-416 Banjade v. Garland BIA Christensen, IJ A 208 597 272 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 for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 19th day of November, two thousand 4 twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 BHARAT CHANDRA BANJADE 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-416 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 1 _____________________________________ 2 3 FOR PETITIONER: Jason Schaffer, Esq., New York, NY. 4 5 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney 6 General, Civil Division; Anthony C. Payne, 7 Assistant Director; Judith R. O’Sullivan, Trial 8 Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 9 United States Department of Justice, 10 Washington, DC. 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 12 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 13 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 14 Petitioner Bharat Chandra Banjade, a native and citizen of Nepal, seeks 15 review of a January 7, 2020 decision of the BIA affirming an April 17, 2018 decision 16 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of 17 removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 18 Bharat Chandra Banjade, No. A208 597 272 (B.I.A. Jan. 7, 2020), aff’g No. A208 597 19 272 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 17, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with 20 the underlying facts and procedural history. 21 When the BIA’s “opinion closely tracks the IJ’s reasoning” without 22 “expressly ‘adopt[ing]’” it, we typically consider both opinions “for the sake of 2 1 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2 2006). We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence, see 3 Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and treat the agency’s 4 findings of fact as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 5 compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 6 Here, the agency denied relief on the basis of an adverse credibility finding. 7 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of 8 fact may base a credibility determination on …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals