21-6218 Hossain-Chowdhury v. Garland BIA Hom, IJ A206 364 706 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 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 20th day of June, two thousand twenty- 4 three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 MICHAEL H. PARK, 8 ALISON J. NATHAN, 9 MARIA ARAÚJO KAHN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MIR HOSSAIN-CHOWDHURY, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 21-6218 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 1 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY. 2 3 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney 4 General; Anthony C. Payne, Assistant 5 Director; Abigail E. Leach, Trial Attorney, 6 Office of Immigration Litigation, United 7 States Department of Justice, Washington, 8 DC. 9 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 Mir Hossain-Chowdhury, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, 14 seeks review of a March 12, 2021 decision of the BIA affirming a June 25, 2018 15 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, 16 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 17 (“CAT”). In re Mir Hossain-Chowdhury, No. A206 364 706 (B.I.A. Mar. 12, 2021), 18 aff’g No. A206 364 706 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. June 25, 2018). We assume the parties’ 19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 20 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the 21 IJ’s finding of an inconsistency regarding when Hossain-Chowdhury arrived at a 22 medical facility. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 23 2005). We review an adverse credibility determination “under the substantial 2 1 evidence standard,” Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and 2 “the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable 3 adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. 4 § 1252(b)(4)(B). 5 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a 6 trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or 7 responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals