22-904-cv Rahman v. Mayorkas 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 8th day of March, two thousand twenty-three. PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, REENA RAGGI, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. KHALILUR RAHMAN Plaintiff-Appellant, 22-904-cv MARIA AKTER, FATEMA AKTER, FARJAHAN AKTER Plaintiffs, v. ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, JOHN K. TIEN, MERRICK B. GARLAND, GREGORY A. RICHARDSON, TEXAS SERVICE CENTER, Defendants-Appellees, JOHN DOES 1-10, JANE DOES 1-10, ABC AGENCY 1-10, Defendants. 1 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, Esq., New York, NY. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; William C. Peachey, Director; Yamileth G. Davila, Assistant Director; Sean L. King, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (I. Leo Glasser, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff Khalilur Rahman sued Defendants alleging that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) unlawfully denied his application for a status adjustment because its decision was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). In 2014, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granted Rahman asylum following his claim that he was tortured by members of Bangladesh’s Awami League Party because of his membership in the Bangladesh National Party (“BNP”). In 2016, Rahman applied for a status adjustment under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b). USCIS denied his application because it found that he had engaged in terrorist activity and maintained membership in the BNP, which it determined was a Tier III Terrorist organization. 1 The District Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Rahman appeals. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the further underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal. 2 1 USCIS noted that its denial of his application would not result in Rahman losing his asylum status and that he remained authorized to work in the United States. 2 As a threshold matter, there is an open question as to whether we have jurisdiction to review any aspect of a USCIS decision denying discretionary relief, such as a status adjustment, outside of a removal …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals