17-768 Ntwali v. Barr BIA Montante, IJ A205 953 287 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 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 4th day of April, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 TITO NTWALI, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-768 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Carlos E. Estrada, Boston, MA. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General, Civil Division; 27 Anthony C. Payne, Assistant 28 Director; Jessica D. Strokus, 29 Trial Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United 31 States Department of Justice, 32 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is GRANTED. 5 Petitioner Tito Ntwali, a native and citizen of Rwanda, 6 seeks review of a February 24, 2017, decision of the BIA 7 affirming a June 3, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge 8 (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 9 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Tito 10 Ntwali, No. A205 953 287 (B.I.A. Feb. 24, 2017), aff’g No. 11 A205 953 287 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo June 3, 2015). We assume 12 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 13 procedural history in this case. 14 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 15 BIA, minus the IJ’s findings that Ntwali failed to show a 16 nexus to a protected ground or establish a well-founded fear 17 of future persecution. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 18 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). While the BIA did 19 not address all the IJ’s bases for finding Ntwali incredible, 20 it did not expressly reject the findings, and we have 21 therefore reviewed the entirety of the IJ’s adverse 22 credibility determination. See Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 2 1 F.3d 162, 166 (2d Cir. 2008) (“When the BIA agrees with an 2 IJ’s adverse credibility determination and adopts particular 3 parts of the IJ’s reasoning, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals