20-2460 Harripersaud v. Garland BIA Auh, IJ A098 052 196 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 for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 21st day of December, two thousand 4 twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 ISHRI HARRIPERSAUD, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-2460 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 1 2 FOR PETITIONER: Alexander D. Hardiman, Pillsbury Winthrop 3 Shaw Pitman LLP, New York, NY. 4 5 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney 6 General; Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director; 7 Jeffrey R. Meyer, Attorney, Office of 8 Immigration Litigation, United States 9 Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 11 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 12 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 13 Petitioner Ishri Harripersaud, a native and citizen of Guyana, seeks review 14 of a July 2, 2020 decision of the BIA affirming a January 6, 2020 decision of an 15 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying withholding of removal and relief under the 16 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ishri Harripersaud, No. A098 052 196 17 (B.I.A. July 2, 2020), aff’g No. A098 052 196 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Jan. 6, 2020). We 18 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA and reach only 20 the CAT claim that Harripersaud argues before this Court. See Xue Hong Yang v. 21 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 22 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). “The standard of review is the substantial- 23 evidence standard: The agency’s findings of fact are conclusive unless any 2 1 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Nasrallah 2 v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692–94 (2020) (internal quotation marks omitted); Mu 3 Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 432 F.3d 156, 159 (2d Cir. 2005) (explaining that 4 “we will uphold the BIA’s decision unless the petitioner demonstrates …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals