Sheraz v. Blanche

── Sheraz v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 10, 2026 Category: General 25-833 Sheraz v. Blanche BIA Reid, IJ A240 739 564/563/565/566 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 10th day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ FARHAT SHERAZ, MUHAMMAD SHERAZ BHATTI, M.S., M.S.S., Petitioners, v. 25-833 NAC TODD BLANCHE, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.* _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: Usman B. Ahmad, Esq., Long Island City, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General; Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director; Jeffery R. Leist, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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, and Petitioners’ motion for a stay of removal and the government’s motion to expedite are DENIED as moot. Petitioners Farhat Sheraz, Muhammad Sheraz Bhatti, and their two minor children, natives and citizens of Pakistan, seek review of a March 18, 2025 decision of the BIA affirming a September 18, 2024 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and ordering removal to Pakistan and, in the alternative, Brazil. In re Farhat Sheraz, et al., Nos. A240 739 564/563/565/566 (B.I.A. Mar. 18, * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above. 2 2025), aff’g Nos. A240 739 564/563/565/566 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 18, 2024). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We review an IJ’s decision as modified and supplemented by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). In addressing the agency’s determinations related to past persecution and a well-founded fear of persecution, we review “the entirety of the agency’s conclusions [–] both the underlying factual findings and the application of the [Immigration and Nationality Act] to those findings [–] for substantial evidence.” Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, 607 U.S. ___, 146 S. Ct. 845, 851–52 (2