17-1005 Bohara v. Whitaker BIA Poczter, IJ A206 475 735 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 25th day of January, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 RAM KRISHNA BOHARA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1005 17 NAC 18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, 19 ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 20 GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 1 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New 2 York, NY. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Principal 5 Deputy Assistant Attorney 6 General; Cindy S. Ferrier, 7 Assistant Director; Surell 8 Brady, Trial Attorney, Office of 9 Immigration Litigation, United 10 States Department of Justice, 11 Washington, DC. 12 13 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 14 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 15 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 16 is DENIED. 17 Petitioner Ram Krishna Bohara, a native and citizen of 18 Nepal, seeks review of a March 9, 2017, decision of the BIA 19 affirming an August 2, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge 20 (“IJ”) denying Bohara’s application for asylum, withholding 21 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 22 (“CAT”). In re Ram Krishna Bohara, No. A206 475 735 (B.I.A. 23 Mar. 9, 2017), aff’g No. A206 475 735 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 24 Aug. 2, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 25 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 26 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 27 the IJ’s decision as the final agency decision. Shunfu Li v. 28 Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable 2 1 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165- 3 66 (2d Cir. 2008). 4 The governing REAL ID Act credibility standard provides 5 that the agency must “[c]onsider[] the totality of the 6 circumstances,” and may base a credibility finding on 7 inconsistencies or omissions in his or his witness’s 8 statements, “without regard to whether” they go “to the 9 heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. 10 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals