18-3515 Diallo v. Garland BIA Brennan, IJ A208 763 824 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 10th day of March, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 THIERNO ABDOUL DIALLO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-3515 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 26 General; Margaret Kuehne Taylor, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Anthony 28 O. Pottinger, Trial Attorney, 1 Office of Immigration Litigation, 2 United States Department of 3 Justice, Washington, DC. 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is GRANTED. 8 Petitioner Thierno Abdoul Diallo, a native and citizen 9 of Guinea, seeks review of a November 9, 2018 decision of the 10 BIA affirming an August 29, 2017 decision of an Immigration 11 Judge (“IJ”) denying Diallo’s application for asylum, 12 withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 13 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Thierno Abdoul Diallo, No. A 14 208 763 824 (B.I.A. Nov. 9, 2018), aff’g No. A 208 763 824 15 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 29, 2017). We assume the parties’ 16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 17 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 18 BIA, i.e., minus a finding by the IJ that the BIA declined to 19 rely on. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 20 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review an adverse 21 credibility finding under a substantial evidence standard. 22 See Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 23 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 24 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 2 1 determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s 2 or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , the internal 3 consistency of each such statement, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals