Gautam v. Garland

20-3046 Gautam v. Garland BIA Ruehle, IJ A209 161 081 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 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 6th day of January, two thousand twenty-three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 8 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 9 EUNICE C. LEE, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 DIL PRASAD GAUTAM, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-3046 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New 24 York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; M. Jocelyn Lopez 28 Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel; 1 Jeffrey M. Hartman, Trial 2 Attorney, Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 DC. 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Dil Prasad Gautam, a native and citizen of 11 Nepal, seeks review of a decision of the BIA affirming a 12 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his 13 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 14 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Dil 15 Prasad Gautam, No. A 209 161 081 (B.I.A. Aug. 11, 2020), aff’g 16 No. A 209 161 081 (Immigr. Ct. Buffalo June 5, 2018). We 17 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 18 procedural history. 19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 20 both the IJ’s and the 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). We review adverse credibility 23 determinations for substantial evidence, see Hong Fei Gao v. 24 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and “the 2 1 administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 2 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 3 contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). “Considering the 4 totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a 5 trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the 6 demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or 7 witness, . . . the consistency …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals