19-2878 Singh-Bassi v. Garland BIA Poczter, IJ A208 563 304 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 4th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JAGDEEP SINGH-BASSI, AKA JAGDEEP 14 SINGH, AKA SOHNA THAPA, AKA SONU 15 SINGH, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 19-2878 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent.* 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: Mike Singh Sethi, Sethi Law 27 Group, Orange, CA. 28 * Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 2 Attorney General; M. Jocelyn Lopez 3 Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel; 4 Christopher Buchanan, Trial 5 Attorney, Office of Immigration 6 Litigation, United States 7 Department of Justice, Washington, 8 DC. 9 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 13 is DENIED. 14 Petitioner Jagdeep Singh-Bassi, a native and citizen of 15 India, seeks review of an August 14, 2019, decision of the 16 BIA affirming a February 5, 2018, decision of an Immigration 17 Judge (“IJ”) denying Singh-Bassi’s application for asylum, 18 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 19 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jagdeep Singh-Bassi, No. A208 20 563 304 (B.I.A. Aug. 14, 2019), aff’g No. A208 563 304 (Immig. 21 Ct. N.Y.C. Feb. 5, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 22 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 23 Under the circumstances, we have considered both the IJ’s 24 and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 25 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d 26 Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 2 1 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. 2 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 3 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 4 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 5 determination on . . . the consistency between the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals