17-1984 Bonilla-Inga v. Barr BIA Loprest, IJ A206 685 668 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 11th day of March, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ RICHARD FERNANDO BONILLA-INGA, Petitioner, v. 17-1984 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Michael Borja, Borja Law Firm, P.C., Jackson Heights, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director; Corey L. Farrell, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Richard Fernando Bonilla-Inga, a native and citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a May 25, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming an October 11, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Bonilla-Inga’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Richard Fernando Bonilla-Inga, No. A 206 685 668 (B.I.A. May 25, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 685 668 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 11, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, our review is limited to the IJ’s and BIA’s decision to the extent they deny relief on credibility grounds. Jin Yu Lin v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 413 F.3d 188, 191 n.4 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the adverse credibility determination under a substantial evidence standard. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). The governing REAL ID Act credibility standard provides as 2 follows: Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, . . . the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record . . . , and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, . . . or ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals