16-948 Poudel v. Garland BIA Verrillo, IJ A205 811 487 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 15th day of March, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 KISHOR KUMAR POUDEL, AKA ANIL 14 POUDEL, AKA ANIL PAUDEL, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 16-948 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Dilli Raj Bhatta, Esq., Bhatta 25 Law & Associates, New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, 29 Assistant Director; Kristin 30 Moresi, Trial Attorney, Office of 31 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 Kishor Kumar Poudel, a native and citizen of 9 Nepal, seeks review of a March 3, 3016, decision of the BIA 10 affirming an August 14, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge 11 (“IJ”) denying Poudel’s application for asylum. In re Kishor 12 Kumar Poudel, No. A205 811 487 (B.I.A. Mar. 3, 2016), aff’g 13 No. A205 811 487 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Aug. 14, 2014). We 14 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 15 procedural history. 16 We have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. 17 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d 18 Cir. 2006). The standards of review are well established. 19 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 20 114 (2d Cir. 2010). An applicant for asylum “must establish 21 that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular 22 social group, or political opinion was or will be at least 23 one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” 8 U.S.C. 2 1 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). “[A]sylum may be granted where there is 2 more than one motive for mistreatment, as long as at least 3 one central reason for the mistreatment is on account of a 4 protected ground.” Acharya …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals