19-2316 Hossain-Chowdhurry v. Garland BIA Douchy, IJ A208 678 668 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 9th day of June, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 MOHAMMED ALAMGIR HOSSAIN- 15 CHOWDHURRY, A.K.A. MUHAMMAD 16 NAJIN MUTAR KHUDAYIR 17 Petitioner, 18 19 v. 19-2316 20 NAC 21 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 22 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 23 Respondent. 24 _____________________________________ 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: Ramesh K. Shrestha, Esq., New 27 York, NY. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph Hunt, Assistant Attorney 2 General; Carl McIntyre, Assistant 3 Director; Virginia Lum, Attorney, 4 Office of Immigration Litigation, 5 United States Department of 6 Justice, Washington, DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Mohammed Alamgir Hossain-Chowdhurry, a native 12 and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of a June 28, 2019, 13 decision of the BIA affirming a February 8, 2018, decision of 14 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 15 removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture 16 (“CAT”). In re Mohammed Alamgir Hossain-Chowdhurry, No. A 17 208 678 668 (B.I.A. June 28, 2019), aff’g No. A 208 678 668 18 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 8, 2018). We assume the parties’ 19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 20 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 21 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 22 Homeland Security, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 23 applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 24 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 25 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility 2 1 determination for substantial evidence). An IJ may, 2 “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances” base a 3 credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s “demeanor, 4 candor, or responsiveness,” the plausibility of his account, 5 and inconsistencies in his statements or between his 6 statements and other evidence, “without regard to whether an 7 inconsistency, inaccuracy, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals