FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ATM MAGFOOR RAHMAN SARKAR; No. 17-72212 HASNA HENA RAHMAN; SAIQA RAHMAN; SAHRIAR RAHMAN, Agency Nos. Petitioners, A070-952-103 A070-952-104 v. A070-952-105 A070-952-107 MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. OPINION On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted March 10, 2022 Pasadena, California Filed July 1, 2022 Before: Sandra S. Ikuta, Kenneth K. Lee, and Danielle J. Forrest, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Forrest 2 SARKAR V. GARLAND SUMMARY * Immigration The panel denied the parties’ motion for judicial administrative closure of the case and denied Atm Magfoor Rahman Sarkar, his wife, and their children’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of their third motion to reopen. Although this case had been pending for nearly five years, shortly before oral argument both Sarkar and the Government moved to administratively close the case because the Government had deemed Sarkar a low enforcement priority. The panel denied the parties’ motion, concluding that the panel’s inherent authority to manage its docket, including by granting administrative closures, would not be served by keeping this case on the panel’s docket indefinitely. The panel wrote that the Government has numerous means to avoid enforcement against Sarkar if that is what it wants, and it declined to add judicial administrative closure to the list of the Government’s tools. Sarkar did not dispute that his third motion to reopen was untimely and numerically barred. Instead, Sarkar argued that new evidence showing the growing influence of Jihadist extremists in Bangladesh increased his risk of being targeted on account of his political beliefs and membership in the Jatiya party. The panel concluded that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Sarkar’s new evidence was not material to Sarkar and was insufficient to demonstrate a * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. SARKAR V. GARLAND 3 prima facie claim for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief. The panel explained that none of the evidence that Sarkar produced related to membership in the Jatiya party or members of that party who speak up against Islamic extremism. Although Sarkar contended that the changes in marriage laws, the removal of certain poems and stories from educational textbooks, and a terrorist attack that killed mostly foreigners showed a change in Bangladesh’s acceptance of radical Islam, he failed to show that those conditions more severely impacted him and his family than the population at large. The panel agreed with the BIA that Sarkar’s new evidence did not demonstrate an individualized risk of persecution or that he would be subject to a pattern or practice of persecution based on his political affiliation. The panel explained that Sarkar had not submitted evidence of direct and specific facts establishing that he had a reasonable fear of persecution, and his affidavit and articles were too …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals