19-2518 Nazarov v. Garland BIA Segal, IJ A206 472 861/862 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 12th day of November, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ABDISAMI KHAMIDOVICH NAZAROV, 14 ROKHILA JURAEVA, 15 Petitioners, 16 17 v. 19-2518 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONERS: Tatiana S. Aristova, Esq., 25 Khavinson & Associates, P.C., 26 Plainsboro, NJ. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 29 Attorney General; Erica B. Miles, 1 Senior Litigation Counsel; Imran 2 R. Zaidi, Attorney, Office of 3 Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, DC. 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioners Abdisami Khamidovich Nazarov and Rokhila 12 Juraeva, natives and citizens of Uzbekistan, seek review of 13 a July 24, 2019, decision of the BIA affirming a January 17, 14 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, 15 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 16 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Abdisami Khamidovich Nazarov 17 and Rokhila Juraeva, Nos. A206 472 861/862 (B.I.A. July 24, 18 2019), aff’g Nos. A206 472 861/862 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City 19 Jan. 17, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 20 underlying facts and procedural history. 21 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 22 the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 23 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 24 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. 25 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). The agency did not 2 1 err in finding that Petitioners failed to establish their 2 eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 3 relief based on their claims that Uzbek officials confiscated 4 merchandise from one of their stores on account of Nazarov’s 5 political opinion and would detain and harm them in the future 6 on account …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals