20-3152 Bohara v. Garland BIA Poczter, IJ A209 383 931 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 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 December, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 ALISON J. NATHAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 PREM PRAKESH BOHARA, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-3152 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, Chhetry 25 & Associates, P.C., New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Jessica A. 1 Dawgert, Senior Litigation 2 Counsel; Jeffrey M. Hartman, Trial 3 Attorney, Office of Immigration 4 Litigation, United States 5 Department of Justice, Washington, 6 DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Prem Prakesh Bohara, a native and citizen of 12 Nepal, seeks review of an August 25, 2020 decision of the BIA 13 affirming a July 25, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge 14 (“IJ”), which denied his application for asylum, withholding 15 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 16 (“CAT”). In re Prem Prakesh Bohara, No. A 209 383 931 (B.I.A. 17 Aug. 25, 2020), aff’g No. A 209 383 931 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. 18 July 25, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 19 underlying facts and procedural history. 20 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions 21 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 22 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review 23 the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and 24 questions of law and application of law to fact de novo. See 2 1 Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). The 2 agency’s findings of fact are “conclusive unless any 3 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 4 contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We find no error in 5 the agency’s determinations that Bohara filed a frivolous 6 asylum application and that he was not …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals