20-1612 Jaryal v. Garland BIA Sponzo, IJ A208 617 571 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. 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 3rd day of January, two thousand twenty- three. PRESENT: RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, STEVEN J. MENASHI, EUNICE C. LEE, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ANIT JARYAL, Petitioner, v. 20-1612 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Deepti Vithal, Richmond Hill, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director; Carmel A. Morgan, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United 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. Petitioner Anit Jaryal, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a decision of the BIA affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Anit Jaryal, No. A 208 617 571 (B.I.A. Apr. 22, 2020), aff’g No. A 208 617 571 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. June 6, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo, see Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014), and “the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 2 compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). An asylum applicant has the burden to demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b). A. Past Persecution Contrary to Jaryal’s position, the IJ provided sufficient analysis for judicial review. See Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70, 77 (2d Cir. 2005). The IJ explained that the two beatings Jaryal suffered at the hands of members of a rival political party did not rise to the level of persecution because he was not hospitalized, he described the scratches and scrapes resulting from the beatings as minor, and he did not suffer permanent …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals