20-4195 Reyaz v. Garland BIA Montante, IJ A215 734 559 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 19th day of May, two thousand twenty- 4 three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 Susan L. Carney, 8 Steven J. Menashi, 9 Alison J. Nathan, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ATM REYAZ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-4195 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 1 FOR PETITIONER: Usman B. Ahmad, Esq., Long Island City, 2 NY. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy 5 Assistant Attorney General; Song Park, 6 Senior Litigation Counsel; James A. Hurley, 7 Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 8 United States Department of Justice, 9 Washington, DC. 10 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 12 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 13 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 14 Petitioner ATM Reyaz, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of 15 a November 25, 2020 decision of the BIA affirming an August 8, 2019 decision of 16 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum and withholding 17 of removal. In re ATM Reyaz, No. A215 734 559 (B.I.A. Nov. 25, 2020), aff’g No. 18 A215 734 559 (Immig. Ct. Batavia Aug. 8, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity 19 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 20 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., without the 21 specific findings that the BIA declined to rely on. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t 22 of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review factual findings for 23 substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. See Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 2 1 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). “[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless 2 any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 3 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 4 The BIA has defined persecution as a “threat to the life or freedom of, or the 5 infliction of suffering or harm upon, those who differ in a way regarded as 6 offensive.” Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals