19-3846 Singh Multani v. Garland BIA Brennan, IJ A202 134 258 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 24th day of September, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MALKEET SINGH MULTANI, AKA TAMIN 14 IQBAL, AKA MALKIT SINGH, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-3846 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. * 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Satwant Kaur, South Richmond 25 Hill, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Bryan Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Linda S. * Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 Wernery, Assistant Director; 2 Monica M. Twombly, Trial Attorney, 3 Office of Immigration Litigation, 4 United States Department of 5 Justice, Washington, DC. 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Malkeet Singh Multani, a native and citizen 12 of India, seeks review of an October 17, 2019 decision of the 13 BIA affirming a January 11, 2018 decision of an Immigration 14 Judge (“IJ”) that denied Singh Multani’s application for 15 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 16 Convention Against Torture. In re Malkeet Singh Multani, No. 17 A202 134 258 (B.I.A. Oct. 17, 2019), aff’g No. A202 134 258 18 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 11, 2018). We assume the parties’ 19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 20 Under the circumstances, we have considered the decision 21 of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. 22 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the 23 agency’s adverse credibility determination for substantial 24 evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. 25 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 2 1 Singh Multani argues that the IJ erred when she found 2 his testimony to be not credible. We defer to an IJ’s 3 credibility determination “unless, from the totality of the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals