18-952 Bladimir-Acosta v. Barr BIA Laforest, IJ A 079 797 071 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 2nd day of September, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 HENRY BLADIMIR-ACOSTA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-952 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: David Jadidian, Esq., Jackson 24 Heights, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Linda S. Wernery, 28 Assistant Director; Gerald M. 1 Alexander, Trial Attorney, Office 2 of Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 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 Henry Bladimir-Acosta, a native and citizen 10 of Ecuador, seeks review of a March 7, 2018 decision of the 11 BIA affirming a June 9, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge 12 (“IJ”) denying his application for withholding of removal and 13 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 1 In re 14 Henry Bladimir-Acosta, No. A 079 797 071 (B.I.A. Mar. 7, 15 2018), aff’g No. A 079 797 071 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jun. 16 9, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 17 underlying facts and procedural history. 18 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 19 both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of 20 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 21 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review 1Bladimir-Acosta does not challenge the agency’s denial of asylum as time barred. 2 1 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei 2 Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing 3 adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence). 4 We deny the petition because the adverse credibility 5 determination is supported by substantial evidence. 6 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 7 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 8 determination ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals