Patel v. Sessions

16-384 Patel v. Sessions BIA Leeds, IJ A200 955 082 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 20th day of October, two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 RAKESH VITTHALDAS PATEL, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-384 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gopal T. Kukreja, Syosset, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 26 Assistant Attorney General; Eric W. 27 Marsteller, Senior Litigation 28 Counsel; Edward C. Durant, Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of Justice, 31 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 is 4 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Rakesh Vitthaldas Patel, a native and citizen 6 of India, seeks review of a January 13, 2016, decision of the 7 BIA affirming a September 4, 2014, decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying Patel’s application for asylum, 9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against 10 Torture (“CAT”). In re Rakesh Vitthaldas Patel, No. A200 955 11 082 (B.I.A. Jan. 13, 2016), aff’g No. A200 955 082 (Immig. Ct. 12 N.Y. City Sept. 4, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity 13 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 15 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 16 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 17 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 18 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 19 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 20 For asylum applications like Patel’s, governed by the REAL 21 ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 22 circumstances,” base a credibility finding on inconsistencies 2 1 in an asylum applicant’s statements and other record evidence 2 “without regard to whether” those inconsistencies go “to the 3 heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 ...

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