18-447 Rattu v. Barr 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. 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 15th day of May, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., GERARD E. LYNCH, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ SUNY RATTU, Petitioner, v. 18-447 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, New York, NY (Richard W. Chen, New York, NY, on the brief). FOR RESPONDENT: Enitan O. Otunla, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC (Derek C. Julius, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, on the brief). 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 Suny Rattu, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a January 18, 2018, decision of the BIA affirming an April 7, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case. Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ and BIA opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the agency’s adverse credibility findings “under the substantial evidence standard, which requires that [the findings] be supported by reasonable, substantial and probative evidence in the record when considered as a whole.” Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d 2 Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we consider whether the adverse credibility determination is warranted under the totality of the circumstances and assess whether the agency provided “specific, cogent reasons” for its determination that “bear a legitimate nexus to the finding.” Id. at 77 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008). Here, the IJ found Rattu not credible for three reasons: (1) Rattu testified on cross-examination that he was afraid for his life as early as 2011, three years earlier than indicated in previous statements; (2) Rattu stated in his asylum application that he went into hiding with ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals