18-3100 Bilali v. Garland BIA Conroy, IJ A206 228 237 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 21st day of July, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 GUIDO CALABRESI, 9 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 HALIM BILALI, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-3100 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Marotta, Esq., Vernon, 24 NJ. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Jessica A. Dawgert, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Jacob 29 A. Bashyrov, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 1 United States Department of 2 Justice, Washington, DC. 3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 4 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 5 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 6 is DENIED. 7 Petitioner Halim Bilali, a native and citizen of Albania, 8 seeks review of a September 25, 2018, decision of the BIA 9 affirming a October 25, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge 10 (“IJ”) denying Bilali’s application for asylum, withholding 11 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 12 (“CAT”). In re Halim Bilali, No. A 206 228 237 (B.I.A. Sept. 13 25, 2018), aff’g No. A 206 228 237 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 14 25, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 15 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 16 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for 17 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 18 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable 19 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 20 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76– 21 77 (2d Cir. 2018). “Considering the totality of the 22 circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may 2 1 base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency 2 between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements . 3 . . , the internal consistency of each such statement, the 4 consistency of such statements with other evidence of record 5 . …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals