20-3722 Sunar v. Garland BIA Vomacka, IJ A206 882 136 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 24th day of October, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JON O. NEWMAN, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 TUL PRASAD SUNAR, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-3722 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Dilli Raj Bhatta, Esq., Bhatta Law 25 & Associates, New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy 28 Assistant Attorney General; 29 Gregory D. Mack, Senior Litigation 1 Counsel; Sarah L. Martin, Trial 2 Attorney, Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 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 Tul Prasad Sunar, a native and citizen of 12 Nepal, seeks review of an October 22, 2020, decision of the 13 BIA affirming a July 27, 2018, decision of an Immigration 14 Judge ("IJ") denying Sunar's application for asylum, 15 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 16 Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Tul Prasad Sunar, No. A206 17 882 136 (B.I.A. Oct. 22, 2020), aff'g No. A206 882 136 (Immig. 18 Ct. N.Y. City July 27, 2018). We assume the parties' 19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 20 We have reviewed the IJ's decision as modified by the 21 BIA, i.e., minus the IJ's adverse credibility determination 22 because the BIA did not reach it. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 23 Dep't of Just., 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The 24 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 2 1 § 1252(b)(4)(B) ("[T]he administrative findings of fact are 2 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 3 compelled to conclude to the contrary."); Lecaj v. Holder, 4 616 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 2010) (reviewing factual findings 5 under the substantial evidence standard and questions of law 6 and application of law to fact de novo). 7 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals