16-3128 Mohamed Fawzer v. Whitaker BIA Vomacka, IJ A205 442 791 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 15th day of November, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., DENNIS JACOBS, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ MOHAMED FAZLAN MOHAMED FAWZER, Petitioner, v. 16-3128 NAC Matthew G. Whitaker, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Joshua E. Bardavid, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel; Virginia L. Gordon, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Mohamed Fazlan Mohamed Fawzer, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, seeks review of an August 17, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming an October 30, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Fawzer’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mohamed Fazlan Mohamed Fawzer, No. A205 442 791 (B.I.A. Aug. 17, 2016), aff’g No. A205 442 791 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 30, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., excluding the adverse credibility determination, which the BIA declined to reach. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 2 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). An asylum applicant bears the burden of establishing that he suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution in the country of removal on account of a protected ground (“race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion”). 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); Jin Jin Long v. Holder, 620 F.3d 162, 166 (2d Cir. 2010). For applications such as Fawzer’s, governed by the REAL ID Act of 2005, the applicant must show a “sufficiently strong” nexus to a protected ground by demonstrating that the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals