Boota v. Sessions

16-1933 Boota v. Sessions BIA Wright, IJ A073 556 209 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 13th day of October, two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MALIK BOOTA, AKA MOHAMMAD BOOFA, 14 AKA MALIK MOHAMMAD, AKA ABDUL 15 RAUF, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 16-1933 19 NAC 20 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Amy Nussbaum Gell, Gell & Gell, New 26 York, New York. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 29 Assistant Attorney General; Jesse 30 Matthew Bless, Senior Litigation 31 Counsel; Barbara Joan Leen, Trial 1 Attorney, Office of Immigration 2 Litigation, United States 3 Department of Justice, Washington, 4 DC. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 9 DENIED. 10 Petitioner Malik Boota, a native and citizen of Pakistan, 11 seeks review of a May 19, 2016, decision of the BIA, affirming 12 a February 26, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 13 denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 14 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 15 Malik Boota, No. A073 556 209 (B.I.A. May 19, 2016), aff’g No. 16 A073 556 209 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 26, 2015). We assume 17 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 18 procedural history in this case. 19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the 20 IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 21 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The 22 applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 23 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 24 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 2 1 For asylum applications like Boota’s, governed by the REAL 2 ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 3 circumstances,” base a credibility finding on an asylum 4 applicant’s “candor,” and on inconsistencies in ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals