18-3529 Mahat v. Garland BIA Nelson, IJ A208 160 295 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 14th day of December, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 BASANTA MAHAT, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-3529 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 1 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Stuart Altman, Esq., New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Erica B. Miles, Senior Litigation 26 Counsel; Craig A. Newell, Jr., 1The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above. 1 Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is GRANTED. 9 Petitioner Basanta Mahat, a native and citizen of Nepal, 10 seeks review of a November 5, 2018 decision of the BIA 11 affirming an October 31, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge 12 (“IJ”) denying Mahat’s application for asylum, withholding of 13 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 14 (“CAT”). In re Basanta Mahat, No. A 208 160 295 (B.I.A. Nov. 15 5, 2018), aff’g No. A 208 160 295 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 16 31, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 17 underlying facts and procedural history to which we refer 18 only as necessary to explain our decision to grant the 19 petition. 20 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented and 21 modified by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 22 271 (2d Cir. 2005); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 23 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Accordingly, as did the 2 1 BIA, we assume Mahat’s credibility and address only the 2 agency’s conclusion that Mahat could reasonably relocate 3 within Nepal to avoid future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. 4 § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B)(an asylum application may be denied 5 where applicant may reasonably relocate to another part of 6 home country); …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals