Kumal v. Garland

20-1728 Kumal v. Garland BIA Zagzoug, IJ A208 418 009 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 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 21st day of July, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 KUMAR KUMAL, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-1728 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, Esq., 24 New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Sabatino F. Leo, 28 Assistant Director; Jaclyn G. 1 Hagner, Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Kumar Kumal, a native and citizen of Nepal, 11 seeks review of a May 4, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming 12 a May 3, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying 13 Kumal’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 14 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 15 Kumar Kumal, No. A208 418 009 (B.I.A. May 4, 2020), aff’g No. 16 A208 418 009 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 3, 2018). We assume 17 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 18 procedural history. 19 Under the circumstances, we have considered both the IJ’s 20 and the BIA’s opinions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 21 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable 22 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 23 § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“the administrative findings of fact are 24 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 25 compelled to conclude to the contrary”); Hong Fei Gao v. 2 1 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse 2 credibility determination under substantial evidence 3 standard). 4 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 5 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 6 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 7 the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility …

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