19-802 Verma v. Garland BIA Nelson, IJ A208 286 634 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 12th day of April, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 PANKAJ VERMA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-802 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent.* 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Deepti Vithal, Esq., Richmond 24 Hill, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Assistant 27 Attorney General; Anthony P. 28 Nicastro, Assistant Director; * Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 Vanessa M. Otero, Trial Attorney, 2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, DC. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Pankaj Verma, a native and citizen of India, 11 seeks review of a March 8, 2019, decision of the BIA 12 affirming an October 30, 2017, decision of an Immigration 13 Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and 14 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 15 Pankaj Verma, No. A208 286 634 (B.I.A. Mar. 8, 2019), aff’g 16 No. A208 286 634 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 30, 2017). We 17 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 18 and procedural history. 19 We review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the 20 sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 21 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable 22 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 23 1252(b)(4)(B); Wei Sun v. Sessions, 883 F.3d 23, 27 (2d 24 Cir. 2018). 25 2 1 Although the agency erred in denying relief for lack of 2 corroboration without first identifying what reasonably 3 available evidence was missing, giving Verma a chance to 4 explain its absence, and evaluating his explanations, see 5 Wei Sun, 883 F.3d at 31, we deny the petition based on the 6 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals