Pellumbaj v. Garland


19-3639 Pellumbaj v. Garland BIA Nelson, IJ A206 252 510 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 the Second Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 3 City of New York, on the 9th day of December, two thousand twenty-one. 4 5 PRESENT: RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 6 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 7 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 8 Circuit Judges. 9 _____________________________________ 10 11 DITER PELLUMBAJ, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 v. 19-3639 15 NAC 16 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 17 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 18 Respondent. 19 _____________________________________ 20 21 1 FOR PETITIONER: James A. Lombardi, Law Office of James A. 2 Lombardi, P.C., New York, NY. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney 5 General, Civil Division; Sabatino F. Leo, 6 Senior Litigation Counsel; S. Nicole Nardone, 7 Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration 8 Litigation, United States Department of 9 Justice, Washington, DC. 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 11 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 12 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 13 Petitioner Diter Pellumbaj, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of 14 an October 10, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a March 13, 2018 decision of an 15 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 16 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 1 In re Diter Pellumbaj, No. A 206 17 252 510 (B.I.A. Oct. 10, 2019), aff’g No. A 206 252 510 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 13, 18 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 19 procedural history. 20 We review the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA and address only the 21 agency’s conclusion that Pellumbaj failed to present available corroboration. See 1 In his petition, Pellumbaj does not contest the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. See Pet. Br. at 7. 2 1 Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271–72 (2d Cir. 2005). We deem the agency’s 2 findings of fact as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 3 compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Wei Sun v. 4 Sessions, 883 F.3d 23, 27 (2d Cir. 2018). 5 The agency did not err in determining that Pellumbaj failed to satisfy his 6 burden of proof for asylum and withholding of …

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