18-791 Kalala v. Barr BIA Hom, IJ A205 826 228 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 17th day of March, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, Jr., 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 NAOMI KALALA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-791 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 26 General; John S. Hogan, Assistant 27 Director; Lindsay Corliss, Trial 28 Attorney; Office of Immigration 1 Litigation, United States 2 Department of Justice, Washington, 3 DC. 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Naomi Kalala, a native and citizen of the 9 Democratic Republic of the Congo, seeks review of a February 10 26, 2018 decision of the BIA affirming an April 20, 2017 11 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Kalala’s 12 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 13 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Naomi 14 Kalala, No. A 205 826 228 (B.I.A. Feb. 26, 2018), aff’g No. A 15 205 826 228 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C.Apr. 20, 2017). We assume the 16 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 17 history. 18 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the 19 IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” See 20 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Immigration & Customs 21 Enf’t, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable 22 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 23 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 24 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility determination 2 1 under a substantial evidence standard). The governing REAL 2 ID Act credibility standard provides as follows: 3 Considering the totality of the circumstances, and 4 all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a 5 credibility determination on . . . the consistency 6 between the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals