19-3649 Tamang v. Garland BIA Christensen, IJ A208 927 739 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 29th day of June, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MAN BAHADUR TAMANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-3649 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Dilli Raj Bhatta, Esq., Bhatta 24 Law & Associates, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General, Civil Division; 28 Russell J. E. Verby, Senior 1 Litigation Counsel, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation; John D. 3 Williams, Trial Attorney, Office 4 of Immigration Litigation, United 5 States Department of Justice, 6 Washington, DC. 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 Man Bahadur Tamang, a native and citizen of 12 Nepal, seeks review of an October 10, 2019 decision of the 13 BIA affirming a March 6, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge 14 (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 15 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Man 16 Bahadur Tamang, No. A 208 927 739 (B.I.A. Oct. 10, 2019), 17 aff’g No. A 208 927 739 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 6, 2018). 18 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 19 and procedural history. 20 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 21 BIA and do not reach the credibility determination on which 22 the BIA did not rely. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 23 268, 271–72 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of 24 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) 25 (“[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless 2 1 any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to 2 the contrary[.]”); Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 114 (2d 3 Cir. 2010) (“We review factual findings under the deferential 4 substantial evidence standard, treating them as conclusive 5 unless any reasonable …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals