17-3920 Dekaj v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A206 429 345 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 19th day of December, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 8 Chief Judge, 9 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 10 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 FATMIR DEKAJ, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 17-3920 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Charles Christophe, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Jeffery R. 28 Leist, Senior Litigation Counsel; 29 Lance L. Jolley, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 31 United States Department of 32 Justice, Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Fatmir Dekaj, a native and citizen of Albania, 6 seeks review of a November 9, 2017, decision of the BIA 7 affirming a February 15, 2017, decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding 9 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). In re Fatmir Dekaj, No. A206 429 345 (B.I.A. Nov. 11 9, 2017), aff’g No. A206 429 345 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 12 15, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 15 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the 16 IJ’s inconsistency findings that the BIA did not affirm. See 17 Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d 18 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 19 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. 20 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 21 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 22 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 2 1 determination on . . . the consistency between the 2 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , 3 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals