Mutoni v. Garland

19-4304 Mutoni v. Garland BIA Ruehle, IJ A205 277 608 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 2nd day of August, two thousand 4 twenty-three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GERARD E. LYNCH, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 EUNICE C. LEE, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 CLELIA-ARIELLE MUTONI, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-4304 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 1 FOR PETITIONER: Anne E. Doebler, Buffalo, NY. 2 3 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant 4 Attorney General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., 5 Deputy Director; Nancy N. Safavi, Trial 6 Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 7 United States Department of Justice, 8 Washington, DC. 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 Clelia-Arielle Mutoni, a native and citizen of Burundi, seeks 13 review of a November 26, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a March 5, 2018 14 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied her application for asylum, 15 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 16 (“CAT”). In re Clelia-Arielle Mutoni, No. A 205 277 608 (B.I.A. Nov. 26, 2019), aff’g 17 No. A 205 277 608 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Mar. 5, 2018). We assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong 20 Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review adverse 21 credibility determinations “under the substantial evidence standard,” Hong Fei 22 Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and “the administrative findings of 2 1 fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to 2 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 …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals