16-2816 Lama v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A206 567 088 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 24th day of April, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 BIR BAHADUR LAMA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-2816 17 NAC 18 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Stuart Altman, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Erica B. Miles, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Enitan 29 O. Otunla, Trial Attorney, Office 30 of Immigration Litigation, United 31 States Department of Justice, 32 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 Bir Bahadur Lama, a native and citizen of 6 Nepal, seeks review of a July 29, 2016, decision of the BIA 7 affirming a June 15, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge 8 (“IJ”) denying Lama’s application for asylum, withholding 9 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). In re Bir Bahadur Lama, No. A206 567 088 (B.I.A. 11 July 29, 2016), aff’g No. A206 567 088 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. 12 City June 15, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity 13 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this 14 case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., excluding 17 the IJ’s internal relocation finding and reliance on Lama’s 18 asylum interview. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 19 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 20 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 21 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165- 22 66 (2d Cir. 2008). 2 1 The governing REAL ID Act credibility standard provides 2 that the agency must “[c]onsider[] the totality of the 3 circumstances,” and may base a credibility finding on an 4 applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the 5 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals