Singh Padwal v. Sessions

17-1200 Singh Padwal v. Sessions BIA Loprest, IJ A201 109 343 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 22nd day of June, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 HARINDER PAL SINGH PADWAL, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1200 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Amy Nussbaum Gell, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Terri J. 27 Scadron, Assistant Director; Colin 28 J. Tucker, Trial Attorney, Office 29 of Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Harinder Pal Singh Padwal, a native and 6 citizen of India, seeks review of a March 30, 2017, decision 7 of the BIA affirming a June 28, 2016, decision of an 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, 9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Harinder Pal Singh Padwal, 11 No. A201 109 343 (B.I.A. Mar. 30, 2017), aff’g No. A201 109 12 343 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 28, 2016). We assume the 13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 14 history in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the 17 burden finding the BIA did not reach. See Xue Hong Yang v. 18 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The 19 applicable standards of review are well established. See 20 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 21 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 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 . . . , the consistency between ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals