16-1184-ag Ntem-Mensah v. Sessions BIA Straus, IJ A096 524 547 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 23rd day of October, two thousand eighteen. Present: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., GUIDO CALABRESI, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ NANA KWABENA OBONOMA NTEM-MENSAH, Petitioner, v. 16-1184-ag JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ For Petitioner: JUSTIN CONLON, Hartford, CT. For Respondent: ANTHONY W. NORWOOD (Chad A. Readler, Leslie McKay, on the brief) Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 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 Nana Kwabena Obonoma Ntem-Mensah, a native and citizen of the Republic of Ghana, seeks review of a March 22, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a March 14, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ntem-Mensah’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Nana Kwabena Obonoma Ntem-Mensah, No. A096 524 547 (B.I.A. Mar. 22, 2016), aff’g No. A096 524 547 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Mar. 14, 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. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Given this scope of review and because Ntem-Mensah challenges only the denial of withholding of removal, review is limited to whether the agency erred in concluding that he failed to demonstrate that it was more likely than not that he would suffer persecution. The applicable standards of review are well established; “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Su Chun Hu v. Holder, 579 F.3d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 2009). To qualify for withholding of removal, an alien must demonstrate that “it is more likely than not” that he will suffer persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion if returned to his native country. Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals