17-1831 Bardewa v. Barr BIA Hom, IJ A200 921 020 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 27th day of February, two thousand 5 nineteen. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 GUIDO CALABRESI, 9 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 10 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 PARESH BARDEWA, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 17-1831 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Daniel P. Weick, Wendy W.H. 25 Waszmer, New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Nancy Friedman, 29 Senior Litigation Counsel; Kevin 30 J. Conway, Trial Attorney, Office 31 of Immigration Litigation, United 32 States Department of Justice, 33 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 GRANTED. 5 Petitioner Paresh Bardewa, a native and citizen of Nepal, 6 seeks review of a May 11, 2017 decision of the BIA affirming 7 a June 23, 2016 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 8 denying Bardewa’s application for asylum, withholding of 9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). In re Paresh Bardewa, No. A 200 921 020 (B.I.A. May 11 11, 2017), aff’g No. A 200 921 020 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 12 23, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 15 the IJ’s decision as modified and supplemented by the BIA, 16 i.e., minus the IJ’s determination that Bardewa’s brother was 17 able to live in Nepal without persecution from the Maoists, 18 but considering the BIA’s conclusion that an individualized 19 analysis of conditions is not required. See Xue Hong Yang 20 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); 21 Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The 22 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 2 1 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 2 2010). 3 An asylum applicant ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals