18-988 Rahaman v. Barr BIA Wright, IJ A206 233 434 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 16th day of July, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 HANIF RAHAMAN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-988 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: David J. Rodkin, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 26 General; Claire L. Workman, Senior 27 Litigation Counsel; Nelle M. 28 Seymour, Trial Attorney, Office of 1 Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, DC. 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 Hanif Rahaman, a native and citizen of 9 Bangladesh, seeks review of a March 16, 2018, decision of the 10 BIA affirming a June 13, 2017, decision of an Immigration 11 Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding 12 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 13 (“CAT”). In re Hanif Rahaman, No. A 206 233 434 (B.I.A. Mar. 14 16, 2018), aff’g No. A 206 233 434 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 15 13, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 16 underlying facts and procedural history. 17 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 18 both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of 19 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 20 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review 21 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei 22 Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “Considering 23 the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, 24 a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the 2 1 demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant . . . , 2 the consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and 3 oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals