20-1792 Singh-Khashre v. Garland BIA Thompson, IJ A206 899 415 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 18th day of February, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 MANJEET SINGH-KHASHRE, AKA 15 MANJEET SINGH KHASHRE, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 20-1792 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Nataliya I. Gavlin, Esq., Gavlin 26 & Associates, P.C., New York, NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 1 Attorney General; Anthony P. 2 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 3 Andrew B. Insenga, Trial Attorney, 4 Office of Immigration Litigation, 5 United States Department of 6 Justice, Washington, DC. 7 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Manjeet Singh-Khashre, a native and citizen 13 of India, seeks review of a May 14, 2020, decision of the BIA 14 affirming a July 25, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge 15 (“IJ”) denying Singh-Khashre’s application for asylum, 16 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 17 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Manjeet Singh-Khashre, No. 18 A206 899 415 (B.I.A. May 14, 2020), aff’g No. A206 899 415 19 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 25, 2018). We assume the parties’ 20 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 21 Under the circumstances, we have considered the decision 22 of the IJ as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 23 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review 24 the agency’s adverse credibility determination for 25 substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei 26 Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 2 1 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 2 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 3 determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 4 the applicant or witness, . . . the consistency between the 5 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals