18-2127 Ravi v. Barr BIA Hom, IJ A205 941 618 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 2nd day of December, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 10 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 RAVI, AKA RAVI KUMAR, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-2127 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Jaspreet Singh, Esq., Jackson 25 Heights, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Edward E. 29 Wiggers, Senior Litigation 30 Counsel, Nicole J. Thomas-Dorris, 31 Trial Attorney, Office of 32 Immigration Litigation, United 33 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 Ravi, also known as Ravi Kumar, a native and 9 citizen of India, seeks review of a June 25, 2018 decision of 10 the BIA affirming a July 28, 2017 decision of an Immigration 11 Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and 12 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 13 Ravi Kumar, No. A205 941 618 (B.I.A. June 25, 2018), aff’g 14 No. A205 941 618 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. July 28, 2017). We assume 15 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 16 procedural history. 17 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 18 both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 19 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review 20 the agency’s factual findings under the substantial evidence 21 standard, treating them as “conclusive unless any reasonable 22 adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 23 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 24 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008). “We review de novo questions of 2 1 law and the application of law to undisputed fact.” 2 Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008). 3 To establish asylum eligibility, an applicant must show ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals