20-1950 Vakhabov v. Garland BIA Christensen, IJ A208 018 033 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 27th day of April, two thousand twenty- three. PRESENT: JOSEPH F. BIANCO, STEVEN J. MENASHI, BETH ROBINSON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ SHERZOD VAKHABOV, Petitioner, v. 20-1950 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Berdymurat Berdyev, Esq., Berdyev Law, P.C., Woodbridge, NJ. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Matthew B. George, Senior Litigation Counsel; Timothy Bo Stanton, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Sherzod Vakhabov, a native of the former Soviet Union and citizen of Uzbekistan, seeks review of a May 27, 2020 order of the BIA, affirming a July 26, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Sherzod Vakhabov, No. A208 018 033 (B.I.A. May 27, 2020), aff’g No. A208 018 033 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 26, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of review are well established. “[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1252(b)(4)(B). “Accordingly, we review the agency’s decision for substantial evidence and must defer to the factfinder’s findings based on such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. . . . By contrast, we review legal conclusions de novo.” Singh v. Garland, 11 F.4th 106, 113 (2d Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). An applicant for asylum and withholding of removal “must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals