21-6133 Kumar-Pun v. Garland BIA Poczter, IJ A209 164 889 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 for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 19th day of May, two thousand twenty- 4 three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 8 SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, 9 MARIA ARAÚJO KAHN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 RAJAN KUMAR-PUN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 21-6133 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 1 FOR PETITIONER: Shiva Prasad Khanal, Esq., New York, NY. 2 3 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney 4 General; Derek C. Julius, Assistant Director; 5 Erik R. Quick, Trial Attorney, Office of 6 Immigration Litigation, United States 7 Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 8 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 10 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 11 DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED. 12 Petitioner Rajan Kumar-Pun, a native and citizen of Nepal, seeks review of 13 a March 1, 2021 decision of the BIA, affirming a September 7, 2018 decision of an 14 Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied his application for asylum, withholding 15 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Rajan 16 Kumar-Pun, No. A209 164 889 (B.I.A. Mar. 1, 2021), aff’g No. A209 164 889 (Immigr. 17 Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 7, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 18 facts and procedural history. 19 We have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s opinions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. 20 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). We review factual findings, including 21 an adverse credibility determination, “under the substantial evidence standard,” 22 Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and “the administrative 2 1 findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 2 compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 3 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a 4 trier of fact may base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency between 5 the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , the internal 6 consistency of each such statement, the consistency of …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals