Valle Anaya v. Garland

20-2737 Valle Anaya v. Garland BIA Mulligan, IJ A093 394 086 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 20th day of July, two thousand twenty-two. PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, RICHARD C. WESLEY, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ JAVIER ALFREDO VALLE ANAYA, Petitioner, v. 20-2737 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Alison M. Igoe, Senior Counsel for National Security; Drew C. Brinkman, Senior Counsel for National Security, 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 Javier Alfredo Valle Anaya, a native and citizen of Colombia, seeks review of a July 22, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming an October 6, 2019, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Javier Alfredo Valle Anaya, No. A 093 394 086 (B.I.A. Jul. 22, 2020), aff’g No. A 093 394 086 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 6, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Under the circumstances, we review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005) (“Where the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ and merely supplements the IJ’s decision, however, we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA.”). The applicable standards of review are well 2 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing the adverse credibility determination under a substantial evidence standard). I. Adverse Credibility “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness” and inconsistencies within and between an applicant’s statements and other evidence, “without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). This …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals