16-4130 Kibria v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A205 634 225 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 25th day of June, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 GOLAM KIBRIA, AKA MOHAMED 14 HUSSEIN, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 16-4130 18 NAC 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Anthony P. 28 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 29 Sheri R. Glaser, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 31 United States Department of 32 Justice, Washington, 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 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Golam Kibria, a native and citizen of 6 Bangladesh, seeks review of a November 22, 2016, decision 7 of the BIA affirming a March 2, 2016, decision of an 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Kibria’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Golam Kibria, No. 11 A 205 634 225 (B.I.A. Nov. 22, 2016), aff’g No. A 205 634 12 225 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 2, 2016). We assume the 13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 14 procedural history in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of 17 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 18 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of 19 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 20 Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 21 2008). 22 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 23 circumstances,” base an adverse credibility ruling on the 2 1 “consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written 2 and oral statements[,] . . . the internal consistency of 3 each such statement, . . . the consistency of such 4 statements ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals