20-4124 Soyza v. Garland BIA Hom, IJ A205 901 198 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. 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 5th day of May, two thousand twenty-three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 GIHAN SUNIMAL WIJEMUNI SOYZA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-4124 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, New 24 York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Assistant 27 Attorney General; Jonathan A. 28 Robbins, Sherease Pratt, Senior 1 Litigation Counsel, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. 9 Petitioner Gihan Sunimal Wijemuni Soyza, a native and 10 citizen of Sri Lanka, seeks review of a November 9, 2020, 11 decision of the BIA affirming a June 25, 2018, decision of an 12 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, 13 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 14 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Gihan Sunimal Wijemuni Soyza, 15 No. A 205 901 198 (B.I.A. Nov. 9, 2020), aff’g No. A 205 901 16 198 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 25, 2018). We assume the 17 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 18 history. 19 We have considered both the IJ’s and BIA’s opinions “for 20 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 21 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable 22 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 23 § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he administrative findings of fact are 2 1 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 2 compelled to conclude to the contrary.”); Yanqin Weng v. 3 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009) (reviewing 4 factfinding for substantial evidence and questions of law de 5 novo). 6 Soyza alleged that officers in the Sri Lankan navy 7 arrested, beat, and interrogated him because they suspected 8 he was helping …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals