20-3168 Timalsina v. Garland BIA Lurye, IJ A208 927 879 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 19th day of December, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JON O. NEWMAN, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 EUNICE C. LEE, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 NAGENDRA PRASAD TIMALSINA, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-3168 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 1 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New 2 York, NY. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 5 Attorney General; Justin R. 6 Markel, Paul Fiorino, Senior 7 Litigation Counsel, Office of 8 Immigration Litigation, United 9 States Department of Justice, 10 Washington, DC. 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 12 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 13 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 14 is DENIED. 15 Petitioner Nagendra Prasad Timalsina, a native and 16 citizen of Nepal, seeks review of an August 26, 2020 decision 17 of the BIA affirming an August 16, 2018 decision of an 18 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, 19 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 20 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Nagendra Prasad Timalsina, 21 No. A208-927-879 (B.I.A. Aug. 26, 2020), aff’g No. A208-927- 22 879 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Aug. 16, 2018). We assume the 23 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 24 history. 25 The BIA afirmed without an opinion, so we review the IJ’s 26 decision directly. Twum v. INS, 411 F.3d 54, 58 (2d Cir. 2 1 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 2 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he 3 administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 4 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 5 contrary.”); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d 6 Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility determination under 7 “substantial evidence” standard). 8 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 9 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 10 determination on” the “consistency between the 11 applicant’s . . . written and oral statements (whenever made 12 and whether or not …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals