17-2583 Chodak v. Barr BIA Nelson, IJ A087 786 623/624 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 20th day of May, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 UGEN CHODAK, AKA PASANG SHERPA, 14 CHIRING SHERPA, 15 Petitioners, 16 17 v. 17-2583 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONERS: Stuart Altman, Law Office of 25 Stuart Altman, New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 28 General; Terri J. Scadron, 29 Assistant Director; Margot L. 1 Carter, Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioners Ugen Chodak and Chiring Sherpa, natives and 10 citizens of Nepal, seek review of a July 24, 2017, decision 11 of the BIA affirming an October 3, 2016, decision of an 12 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Chodak’s application for 13 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 14 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ugen Chodak and 15 Chiring Sherpa, No. A 087 786 623/624 (B.I.A. July 24, 2017), 16 aff’g No. A 087 786 623/624 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 3, 17 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 18 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 20 both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of 21 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 22 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The standards of review are well 23 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Hong Fei Gao v. 2 1 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018); Yanqin Weng v. 2 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513-14 (2d Cir. 2009). 3 Chodak had the burden of proof for asylum. 8 U.S.C. 4 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). 5 The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to 6 sustain the applicant’s burden without 7 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals