18-2778 Darji v. Wilkinson BIA Wright, IJ A205 727 174 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 25th day of January, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 10 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 MADHAV DARJI, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-2778 18 NAC 19 MONTY WILKINSON, ACTING 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent.* 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Jason Schaffer, Esq., New York, 26 NY. 27 * Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson is automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen as Respondent. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Jessica E. 3 Burns, Senior Litigation Counsel, 4 Edward C. Durant, Attorney, Office 5 of Immigration Litigation, United 6 States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, DC. 8 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 12 is DENIED. 13 Petitioner Madhav Darji, a native and citizen of Nepal, 14 seeks review of an August 21, 2018, decision of the BIA 15 affirming an October 25, 2017, decision of an Immigration 16 Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and 17 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 18 Madhav Darji, No. A205 727 174 (B.I.A. Aug. 21, 2018), aff’g 19 No. A205 727 174 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 25, 2017). We 20 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 21 procedural history. 22 We review the agency’s adverse credibility determination 23 under the substantial evidence standard. See 8 U.S.C. 24 § 1252(b)(4); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d 25 Cir. 2018). “Considering the totality of the circumstances, 26 and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a 2 1 credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or 2 responsiveness of the applicant . . . , the consistency 3 between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral 4 statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such 5 statement, the consistency of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals