19-2362 Karim v. Garland BIA Wright, IJ A206 476 009 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 for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 4th day of January, two thousand twenty- 4 two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 FAZLUL KARIM, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-2362 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 1 FOR PETITIONER: Yoram Nachimovsky, Esq., New York, NY. 2 3 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; 4 M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation 5 Counsel; Christopher Buchanan, Trial 6 Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 7 United States Department of Justice, 8 Washington, DC. 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 10 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 11 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Fazlul Karim, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of 13 a July 2, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a January 10, 2018 decision of an 14 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 15 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Fazlul Karim, No. A206 476 16 009 (B.I.A. July 2, 2019), aff’g No. A206 476 009 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 10, 2018). 17 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 18 history. 19 We have reviewed both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions, including the 20 portions of the IJ’s decision not explicitly addressed by the BIA. See Yun-Zui Guan 21 v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). We review adverse credibility 22 determinations for substantial evidence, see Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 2 1 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and treat the agency’s findings of fact as “conclusive unless any 2 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. 3 § 1252(b)(4)(B). “The scope of review under the substantial evidence standard is 4 exceedingly narrow, and we will uphold the BIA’s decision unless the petitioner 5 demonstrates that the record evidence was so compelling that no reasonable 6 factfinder could fail to find him eligible for relief.” …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals