Okunev v. Sessions

16-840 Okunev v. Sessions BIA Hom, IJ A205 895 089 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 1st day of May, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RALPH K. WINTER, 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ANDREY OKUNEV, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-840 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Rakhvir Dhanoa, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 26 Deputy Assistant Attorney 27 General; Nancy Friedman, Senior 28 Litigation Counsel; Sharon M. 29 Clay, Trial Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Andrey Okunev, a native of the former Soviet 9 Union and citizen of Russia, seeks review of a February 22, 10 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a July 28, 2015, decision 11 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Okunev’s application 12 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 13 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Andrey Okunev, No. 14 A205 895 089 (B.I.A. Feb. 22, 2016), aff’g No. A205 895 089 15 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 28, 2015). We assume the parties’ 16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 17 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 18 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA (i.e., excluding 19 the adverse credibility determination, which the BIA did 20 not reach). See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 21 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards 22 of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 23 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 24 (2d Cir. 2009). 25 2 1 The agency did not err in denying relief based on 2 Okunev’s failure to submit reasonably available 3 corroborating evidence. “No court shall reverse a 4 determination made by a trier of fact with respect to the 5 availability of ...

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