18-195 Gamarro Meneses v. Barr BIA Ruehle, IJ A201 217 060 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 21st day of October, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 8 Chief Judge, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 SAUL GAMARRO MENESES, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-195 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Jose Perez, Law Offices of Jose 25 Perez, P.C., Syracuse, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 28 Attorney General; Justin Markel, 29 Senior Litigation Counsel; 30 Virginia Lum, Attorney, Office of 31 Immigration Litigation, United 32 States Department of Justice, 33 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 Saul Gamarro Meneses, a native and citizen of 6 Guatemala, seeks review of a December 21, 2017, decision of 7 the BIA affirming a March 10, 2017, decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and 9 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 10 Saul Gamarro Meneses, No. A201 217 060 (B.I.A. Dec. 21, 2017), 11 aff’g No. A201 217 060 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Mar. 10, 2017). 12 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 13 and procedural history in this case. 14 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions 15 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 16 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review 17 the agency’s adverse credibility determination for 18 substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei 19 Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “Considering 20 the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, 21 a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the 22 demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant . . . , 23 the consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and 24 oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals