21-6144 Prajapati v. Garland BIA Nelson, IJ A200 006 951 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 12th day of May, two thousand twenty- three. PRESENT: JOSEPH F. BIANCO, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ HARSHAD KUMAR BABABHAI PRAJAPATI, Petitioner, v. 21-6144 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Esq., Law Office of Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Jessica A. Dawgert, Senior Litigation Counsel; Giovanni B. Di Maggio, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED. Petitioner Harshad Kumar Bababhai Prajapati, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a February 16, 2021 decision of the BIA, affirming a September 6, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Harshad Kumar Bababhai Prajapati, No. A200 006 951 (B.I.A. Feb. 16, 2021), aff’g No. A200 006 951 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 6, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Under the circumstances we have reviewed the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA, Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005), but without considering the portions of the IJ’s decision that the BIA did not 2 “explicitly adopt,” Yu Sheng Zhang v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 362 F.3d 155, 159 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam). An asylum applicant has the burden to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a), (b). “The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the . . . testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee. In determining whether the applicant has met the applicant’s burden, the trier of fact may weigh the credible testimony along with other evidence …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals