19-172 Bosel v. Garland BIA Christensen, IJ A205 614 579 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 March, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNY CHIN, 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 HOM PRASAD BOSEL, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-172 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent.* 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Jason Schaffer, Esq., Mungoven & 25 Associates, P.C., New York, NY. 26 * Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Liza S. Murcia , Senior Litigation 2 Counsel; Raya Jarawan, 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 Hom Prasad Bosel, a native and citizen of 12 Nepal, seeks review of a December 18, 2018 decision of the 13 BIA affirming a November 22, 2017 decision of an Immigration 14 Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding 15 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 16 (“CAT”). In re Hom Prasad Bosel, No. A205 614 579 (B.I.A. 17 Dec. 18, 2018), aff’g No. A 205 614 579 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. 18 Nov. 22, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 19 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 20 We review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA 21 under the substantial evidence standard, and we review 22 questions of law de novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 23 Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). 24 2 1 Where, as here, the agency found past persecution, an 2 asylum applicant has a rebuttable presumption of a well- 3 founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. 4 § 1208.13(b)(1). † The government may rebut that presumption 5 if it shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, either that 6 there has been “a fundamental change in circumstances …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals