20-1735 Hoti v. Garland BIA Cohen, IJ A206 635 671 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 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 22nd day of September, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 ALISON J. NATHAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 ERVIN HOTI, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-1735 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Ervin Hoti, pro se, Bronxville, 25 NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General, Civil Division; 1 Holly M. Smith , Senior Litigation 2 Counsel; Sarah K. Pergolizzi, 3 Trial Attorney, Office of 4 Immigration Litigation, Civil 5 Division, United States Department 6 of 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 Ervin Hoti, a native and citizen of Albania, 12 seeks review of a May 1, 2020 decision of the BIA affirming 13 an April 24, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), 14 which denied his application for asylum, withholding of 15 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 16 (“CAT”). In re Hoti, No. A206 635 671 (B.I.A. May 1, 2020), 17 aff’g No. A206 635 671 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 24, 2018). 18 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 19 and procedural history. 20 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions 21 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 22 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review 23 adverse credibility determinations under a substantial 24 evidence standard, Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 2 1 (2d Cir. 2018), and “the administrative findings of fact are 2 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 3 compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. 4 § 1252(b)(4)(B). “Considering the totality of the 5 circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may 6 base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency 7 between the applicant’s or witness’s written …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals