20-1015 Hossain v. Garland BIA Kolbe, IJ A206 911 460 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 30th day of March, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 8 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 FARUQ HOSSAIN, AKA FARUG 14 HOSSAIN, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-1015 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Ben Baumgartner, Baumgartner Law 25 Office, New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 28 Assistant Attorney General; 1 Bernard A. Joseph, Senior 2 Litigation Counsel; Erik R. Quick, 3 Trial Attorney, Office of 4 Immigration Litigation, United 5 States Department of Justice, 6 Washington, DC. 7 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Faruq Hossain, a native and citizen of 13 Bangladesh, seeks review of a February 24, 2020 decision of 14 the BIA affirming an April 2, 2018 decision of an Immigration 15 Judge (“IJ”), which denied Hossain’s application for asylum, 16 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 17 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Faruq Hossain, No. A206 911 18 460 (B.I.A. Feb. 24, 2020), aff’g No. A206 911 460 (Immigr. 19 Ct. N.Y.C. Apr. 2, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 20 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 21 Under the circumstances, we have considered both the IJ’s 22 and the BIA’s opinions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 23 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the 24 agency’s adverse credibility determination for substantial 25 evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he 26 administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 2 1 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 2 contrary.”). “The scope of review under the substantial 3 evidence standard is exceedingly narrow, and we will uphold 4 the BIA's decision unless the petitioner demonstrates that 5 the record evidence was so compelling that no reasonable 6 factfinder could fail to find him eligible for relief.” 7 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals