21-6131 Kazol v. Garland BIA Douchy, IJ A206 913 600 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. 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 22nd day of February, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 ALISON J. NATHAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 SANAULLAH KAZOL, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 21-6131 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, Esq., New 25 York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting 28 Assistant Attorney General; 1 Sabatino F. Leo, Assistant 2 Director; Katie E. Rourke, Trial 3 Attorney, Office of Immigration 4 Litigation, United States 5 Department of Justice, 6 Washington, DC. 7 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Sanaullah Kazol, a native and citizen of 13 Bangladesh, seeks review of a February 26, 2021 decision of 14 the BIA affirming an October 2, 2018 decision of an 15 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, 16 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 17 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Sanaullah Kazol, No. A206 913 18 600 (B.I.A. Feb. 26, 2021), aff’g No. A206 913 600 (Immig. 19 Ct. N.Y.C. Oct. 2, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 20 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 21 We have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s opinions. See 22 Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). 23 We review an adverse credibility determination “under the 24 substantial evidence standard,” Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 25 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and “the administrative findings 26 of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator 2 1 would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1252(b)(4)(B). 3 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 4 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 5 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 6 the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the 7 applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals