17-1752 Torba v. Barr BIA Wright, IJ A078 280 102 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 7th day of August, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ERMAL TORBA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1752 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jon E. Jessen, Stamford, CT. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Song Park, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; 28 Victoria M. Braga, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of 31 Justice, 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 Ermal Torba, a native and citizen of Albania, 6 seeks review of a May 4, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming 7 a March 2, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 8 denying Torba’s application for asylum, withholding of 9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). In re Ermal Torba, No. A 078 280 102 (B.I.A. May 4, 11 2017), aff’g No. A 078 280 102 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 2, 12 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 15 the BIA. See Wala v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102, 105 (2d Cir. 16 2007). The standards of review are well established. See 8 17 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 18 (2d Cir. 2009). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s 19 determination that Torba’s claim of past persecution based on 20 his political opinion was not credible. Nor did the agency 21 err in finding that Torba did not demonstrate a well-founded 22 fear of future persecution on account of a blood feud. 2 1 Adverse Credibility Determination 2 Torba filed for asylum before May 11, 2005, so his 3 application is not subject to the credibility ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals