17-1135 Sherpa v. Barr BIA Vomacka, IJ A089 252 045/046 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 18th day of March, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ PASANG DAWA SHERPA, ANG CHHOKPA SHERPA, Petitioners, v. 17-1135 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: Ramesh K. Shrestha, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel; Erik R. Quick, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 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 DENIED. Petitioners Pasang Dawa Sherpa (“Sherpa”) and Ang Chhokpa Sherpa, natives and citizens of Nepal, seek review of a March 28, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a June 16, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Pasang Dawa Sherpa’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 In re Pasang Dawa Sherpa, Ang Chhokpa Sherpa, Nos. A 089 252 045/046 (B.I.A. Mar. 28, 2017), aff’g Nos. A 089 252 045/046 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 16, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual 1 Petitioner Ang Chhokpa Sherpa is a derivative beneficiary on the asylum application. Accordingly, this order refers primarily to the lead petitioner. 2 findings under the substantial evidence standard. Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 325, 332 (2d Cir. 2013). “The administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). In denying Sherpa’s original petition for review, we upheld the agency’s determination that Sherpa had not suffered harm amounting to past persecution, and Sherpa does not challenge that finding. Thus, he had the burden of establishing a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). To do this, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals