18-1303 Hoque v. Barr BIA Schoppert, IJ A208 173 466 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 13th day of August, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MOJAMMAL HOQUE, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-1303 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 27 General; M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Anthony 29 J. Messuri, Trial Attorney, Office 1 of Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, DC. 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Mojammal Hoque, a native and citizen of 9 Bangladesh, seeks review of an April 3, 2018 decision of the 10 BIA affirming a July 13, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge 11 (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of 12 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 13 (“CAT”). In re Mojammal Hoque, No. A 208 173 466 (B.I.A. Apr. 14 3, 2018), aff’g No. A 208 173 466 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. July 13, 15 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 16 underlying facts and procedural history. 17 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 18 both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. 19 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The standards 20 of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 21 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 22 (2d Cir. 2018). “Considering the totality of the 23 circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may 2 1 base a credibility determination on the . . . consistency 2 between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements . . 3 . , the internal consistency of each such statement, the 4 consistency of such statements with other evidence of record 5 . . . without ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals