17-3263 Jamarjashvili v. Barr BIA Hom, IJ A087 665 046/047 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 5th day of November, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, ROBERT D. SACK, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ELENE JAMARJASHVILI, LEVAN IRAKLIEVICH JALIASHVILI, Petitioners, v. 17-3263 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.1 _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: Isabella Mayzel, Springfield, NJ. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; John S. Hogan, Assistant Director; Mona Maria Yousif, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United 1 The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption as above. States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioners Elene Jamarjashvili and Levan Iraklievich Jaliashvili, natives and citizens of Georgia, seek review of a September 13, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming an August 4, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Elene Jamarjashvili, Levan Iraklievich Jaliashvili, No. A 087 665 046/047 (B.I.A. Sept. 13, 2017), aff’g No. A 087 665 046/047 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 4, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified and supplemented by the BIA and limit our review to the agency’s adverse credibility determination and the BIA’s ineffective assistance of counsel analysis. See Yun-Zui Guan v. 2 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Adverse Credibility Determination We review adverse credibility determinations under the substantial evidence standard. Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). The governing REAL ID Act credibility standard provides as follows: Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness . . . the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such statement, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals