21-6328 Singh-Kaur v. Garland BIA Golovnin, IJ A209 945 874 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. 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 7th day of July, two thousand twenty- three. PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN, BETH ROBINSON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ VIKRAMJEET SINGH-KAUR, Petitioner, v. 21-6328 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Anas J. Ahmed, Esq., Jackson Heights, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Timothy G. Hayes, Senior Litigation Counsel; Sarai M. Aldana, 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 GRANTED, and the case is REMANDED for reconsideration in light of this order. Petitioner Vikramjeet Singh-Kaur, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a May 17, 2021, decision of the BIA affirming a December 12, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Vikramjeet Singh-Kaur, No. A 209 945 874 (B.I.A. May 17, 2021), aff’g No. A 209 945 874 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 12, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., considering only the adverse credibility findings that the BIA relied on. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review an adverse credibility determination “under the substantial evidence standard,” Hong Fei Gao 2 v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), and “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). Singh-Kaur alleged that he was a member of the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar Party (also referred to as the Mann Party) and that he was beaten twice by members of the rival Bharatiya Janta Party (“BJP”) for refusing to join that party. CAR 95‒99. He testified that the attacks occurred in April and June 2017. Id. The IJ found that the petitioner was not credible, CAR 52‒53, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals