17-405 Salhan v. Barr BIA Hom, IJ A206 036 016 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 12th day of March, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JATINDER SALHAN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-405 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jatinder Salhan, Pro Se, S. Ozone 24 Park, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Stephen J. 28 Flynn, Assistant Director; Lynda 29 A. Do, Jeffrey R. Meyer, 30 Attorneys, Office of Immigration 31 Litigation, United States 32 Department of Justice, Washington, 33 DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Jatinder Salhan, a native and citizen of 6 India, seeks review of a January 10, 2017, decision of the 7 BIA affirming an April 19, 2016, decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying Salhan’s application for asylum, 9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jatinder Salhan, No. A 206 11 036 016 (B.I.A. Jan. 10, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 036 016 12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 19, 2016). We assume the parties’ 13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 14 in this case. 15 In lieu of filing a brief, the Government moved for 16 summary denial of Salhan’s petition for review.1 Rather than 17 determine if the petition is frivolous as is required for 18 summary denial, see Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 17 (2d Cir. 19 1995), we construe the Government’s motion as its brief and 20 deny the petition on the merits. 1 Although the Government’s motion was filed more that a year ago, Salhan has made no response. 2 1 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 2 both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. 3 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). We review adverse 4 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals