17-4115 Bhuiyan v. Barr BIA Vomacka, IJ A205 643 430 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 22nd day of January, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MONIR AHAMMED BHUIYAN, AKA MONIR 14 HOSSAIN, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 17-4115 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, New 25 York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 28 Attorney General; Justin Markel, 29 Senior Litigation Counsel; 30 Margaret O’Donnell, Trial 31 Attorney, Office of Immigration 1 Litigation, United States 2 Department of Justice, Washington, 3 DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Monir Ahammed Bhuiyan, a native and citizen 10 of Bangladesh, seeks review of a December 1, 2017, decision 11 of the BIA affirming a February 27, 2017, decision of an 12 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Bhuiyan’s application for 13 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 14 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Monir Ahammed 15 Bhuiyan, No. A 205 643 430 (B.I.A. Dec. 1, 2017), aff’g No. A 16 205 643 430 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 27, 2017). We assume 17 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 18 procedural history in this case. 19 In his brief, Bhuiyan argues for the first time that the 20 agency failed to make an explicit adverse credibility 21 determination. In addition to being unexhausted, this 22 argument finds no support in the record. The IJ stated that 23 Bhuiyan was not credible and made specific findings, Bhuiyan 2 1 challenged the adverse credibility determination on appeal to 2 the BIA, and the BIA agreed with the IJ’s adverse credibility 3 determination. Accordingly, we have reviewed both the BIA’s 4 and IJ’s decisions as to the adverse credibility determination. 5 See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). 6 We review the adverse credibility determination under the 7 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals