17-649-ag Pllumaj v. Whitaker 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 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 19th day of December, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges. FLORENC PLLUMAJ, Petitioner, 17-649-ag v. MATTHEW J. WHITAKER, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. FOR PETITIONER: GREGORY MAROTTA, Vernon, NJ. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: COLETTE J. WINSTON, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division (Janette L. Allen, Senior Litigation Counsel, on the brief), for Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C. Petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Florenc Pllumaj (“Pllumaj”), a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of a February 8, 2017 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an October 19, 2015 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Pllumaj’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Florenc Pllumaj, No. A205 879 871 (B.I.A. Feb. 8, 2017), aff’g No. A205 879 871 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 19, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination as supplemented by the BIA. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165–66 (2d Cir. 2008). In assessing an applicant’s credibility, the agency must “[c]onsider[ ] the totality of the circumstances,” and may base a credibility finding on an applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies or omissions in his or his witnesses’ statements, “without regard to whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless . . . it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. “[A]lthough IJs ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals