Kaur v. Sessions

14-2731 Kaur v. Sessions BIA Videla, IJ A078 662 469 A079 596 140 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 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 23rd day of October,two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 RUPINDER KAUR, AKA SAROJ BALA, 14 GURMINDER SINGH, 15 Petitioners, 16 17 v. 14-2731 18 NAC 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONERS: Amy Nussbaum Gell, Gell & Gell, New 25 York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 28 Assistant Attorney General; Paul 29 Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel; 30 Judith R. O’Sullivan, Trial 31 Attorney, Office of Immigration 32 Litigation, United States 33 Department of Justice, Washington, 34 DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 4 DENIED. 5 Petitioners Rupinder Kaur and Gurminder Singh, natives and 6 citizens of India, seek review of a July 14, 2014, decision of 7 the BIA affirming an April 18, 2013, decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying Kaur’s and Singh’s applications for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Rupinder Kauer, Gurminder 11 Singh, Nos. A078 662 469/079 596 140 (B.I.A. July 14, 2014), 12 aff’g Nos. A078 662 469/079 596 140 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 13 18, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 14 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 15 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for 16 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 17 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable 18 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 19 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d 20 Cir. 2009). 21 Under the REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, in light of 22 “the totality of the circumstances,” base an adverse 23 credibility determination on asylum applicants’ “demeanor, 2 1 candor, or responsiveness” and inconsistencies in their 2 statements, ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals