18-3796 Mitaj v. Rosen BIA Navarro, IJ A206 189 278 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 8th day of January, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNY CHIN, 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 DANIEL MITAJ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-3796 17 NAC 18 JEFFREY A. ROSEN, ACTING UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. * 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: James A. Lombardi, Law Office of 24 James A. Lombardi, P.C., New York, 25 New York. 26 * Pursuant to Fed R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Jeffrey A. Rosen is automatically substituted for former Attorney General William P. Barr. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 2 Assistant Attorney General; Cindy 3 S. Ferrier , Assistant Director; 4 Micah Engler, Trial Attorney, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 United States Department of 7 Justice, Washington, D.C. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioner, Daniel Mitaj, a native and citizen of 13 Albania, seeks review of a November 29, 2018 decision of the 14 BIA affirming a November 15, 2017 decision of an Immigration 15 Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and 16 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 17 re Daniel Mitaj, No. A 206 189 278 (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2018), 18 aff’g No. A 206 189 278 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Nov. 15, 2017). We 19 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 20 procedural history. 21 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. 22 See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 23 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the agency’s factual findings under 24 the substantial evidence standard, upholding them so long as 25 “they are supported by reasonable, substantial[,] and 2 1 probative evidence in the record.” Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 2 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks 3 omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (stating that 4 “the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless 5 any reasonable adjudicator ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals