20–414 Kaur v. Garland BIA Navarro, IJ A 206 564 360/361/362/363 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 June, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 DALJIT KAUR, SATPAL SINGH, MANVEER 14 SINGH BHAMRA, KARANVEER SINGH BHAMRA, 15 Petitioners, 16 17 v. 20–414 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONERS: Genet Getachew, Esq., Law Office 25 of Genet Getachew, Brooklyn, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Anthony P. 1 Nicastro , Assistant Director; 2 Timothy Bo Stanton, Trial 3 Attorney, Office of Immigration 4 Litigation, United States 5 Department of Justice, Washington, 6 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 Petitioners Daljit Kaur, Satpal Singh, Manveer Singh 12 Bhamra, Karanveer Singh Bhamra, natives and citizens of 13 India, seek review of a January 7, 2020 decision of the BIA 14 affirming a March 30, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge 15 (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 16 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Daljit 17 Kaur, et al., Nos. A 206 564 360/361/362/363 (B.I.A. Jan. 7, 18 2020), aff’g Nos. A 206 564 360/361/362/363 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. 19 City Mar. 30, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with 20 the underlying facts and procedural history. 21 We review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the 22 sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 23 Security, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review adverse 24 credibility determinations for substantial evidence, see Hong 2 1 Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and we 2 treat the agency’s findings of fact as “conclusive unless any 3 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 4 contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). “The scope of review 5 under the substantial evidence standard is exceedingly 6 narrow, and we …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals