Gurung v. Sessions

16-511 Gurung v. Sessions BIA Vomacka, IJ A201 110 210 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 6th day of November, two thousand 5 seventeen. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 9 REENA RAGGI, 10 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 BIKASH GURUNG, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 16-511 18 NAC 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Stuart Altman, Law Office of 25 Stuart Altman, New York, N.Y. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 28 Deputy Assistant Attorney General; 29 Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant 30 Director; Yanal H. Yousef, Trial 31 Attorney, Office of Immigration 1 Litigation, United States 2 Department of Justice, Washington, 3 D.C. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Bikash Gurung, a native and citizen of Nepal, 10 seeks review of a January 27, 2016, decision of the BIA 11 affirming an August 21, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge 12 (“IJ”) denying Gurung’s application for asylum, withholding 13 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 14 (“CAT”). In re Bikash Gurung, No. A201 110 210 (B.I.A. Jan. 15 27, 2016), aff’g No. A201 110 210 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 16 21, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 17 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 18 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 19 both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. 20 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 21 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 22 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165- 23 66 (2d Cir. 2008). 24 2 1 The governing REAL ID Act credibility standard provides 2 that the agency must “[c]onsider[] the totality of the 3 circumstances,” and may base a credibility finding on an 4 applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the 5 plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his or 6 his witness’s statements, “without regard to ...

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