18-141 Hossain v. Barr BIA Ruehle, IJ A206 370 211 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 21st day of November, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SHAHADAT HOSSAIN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-141 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Stephen K. Tills, Esq., Orchard 24 Park, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 27 Attorney General; Andrew N. 28 O’Malley, Senior Litigation 29 Counsel; Sunah Lee, Trial 30 Attorney, Office of Immigration 31 Litigation, United States 32 Department of Justice, Washington, 33 DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Shahadat Hossain, a native and citizen of 6 Bangladesh, seeks review of a December 27, 2017, decision of 7 the BIA affirming an April 27, 2017, decision of an 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, 9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Hossain, No. A 206 370 211 11 (B.I.A. Dec. 27, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 370 211 (Immig. Ct. 12 Buffalo Apr. 27, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity 13 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 As an initial matter, Hossain’s argument that the agency 15 lacked jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because his 16 notice to appear did not include a hearing date or time is 17 foreclosed by Banegas Gomez v. Barr, 922 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 18 2019). Id. at 110–12. 19 Turning to the adverse credibility determination, we have 20 reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue 21 Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d 22 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 2 1 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. 2 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse 3 credibility determination under a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals