18-1413 Halinskyi v. Barr 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 7th day of May, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., ROSEMARY S. POOLER, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ BORYS HALINSKYI, Petitioner, v. 18-1413 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ Appearing for Petitioner: Vladislav S. Sirota, Brooklyn, N.Y. Appearing for Respondent: Joanna L. Watson, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation (Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Sabatino F. Leo, Senior Litigation Counsel, on the brief), United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) be and it hereby is GRANTED, the order of removal is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED. Petitioner Borys Halinskyi seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In re Borys Halinskyi, No. A202 018 634 (B.I.A. Apr. 20, 2018), aff’g No. A202 018 634 (Immigration Ct. N.Y.C. May 30, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, issues, and procedural history. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the decisions of the IJ and the BIA. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). Halinskyi challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and the IJ’s reliance on Halinskyi’s asylum interview in assessing his credibility. The IJ concluded that Halinskyi was not credible based on two inconsistencies and an omission in his testimony. The IJ further found that Halinskyi’s return trip to Ukraine suggested he was not genuinely fearful of return and that he had not adequately corroborated his claim. The inconsistencies identified by the IJ are insufficient to find that Halinskyi was not entirely credible. “A trivial inconsistency or omission that has no tendency to suggest a petitioner fabricated his or her claim will not support an adverse credibility determination.” Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 77 (2d Cir. 2018). The IJ first found that Halinskyi had omitted from his affidavits any information ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals