Kandel v. Barr

K
<p>18-2796 Kandel v. Barr BIA Nelson, IJ A205 726 059 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 30th day of October, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YAM LAL KANDEL, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-2796 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jason Schaffer, Mungoven &amp; 24 Associates, P.C., New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Derek C. Julius, 28 Assistant Director; Regina Byrd, 1 Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Yam Lal Kandel, a native and citizen of Nepal, 10 seeks review of an August 23, 2018, decision of the BIA 11 affirming an August 9, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge 12 (“IJ”) denying Kandel’s application for asylum, withholding 13 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 14 (“CAT”). In re Yam Lal Kandel, No. A 205 726 059 (B.I.A. Aug. 15 23, 2018), aff’g No. A 205 726 059 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 16 9, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 17 underlying facts and procedural history. 18 In lieu of filing a brief, the Government moves for 19 summary denial of Kandel’s petition for review. Summary 20 denial is warranted only if a petition is frivolous. See 21 Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 17 (2d Cir. 1995). We decline to 22 address whether this petition is frivolous. Kandel has filed 23 his merits brief, and so we treat the Government’s motion as 2 1 a response to that brief. 2 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 3 both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions “for the sake of 4 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 5 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review 6 are well ...</p><br>
<a href="/opinion/4801932/kandel-v-barr/">Original document</a>

Add Comment

By Karl