FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 8 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KABIR HOSSAIN SHAMIM, No. 17-71181 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-914-116 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 10, 2022** Portland, Oregon Before: SCHROEDER and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON,*** District Judge. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. Kabir Shamim, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. In his application for relief, Mr. Shamim claimed a fear of persecution and torture at the hands of the Awami League—the governing political party in Bangladesh—based on his membership in the rival Bangladeshi Nationalist Party (BNP). Following multiple days of testimony, the IJ determined that Mr. Shamim lacked credibility based on various inconsistencies and implausibilities in his story and concluded that the record evidence did not otherwise establish a basis for relief. The BIA found no clear error in the IJ’s determinations and dismissed Mr. Shamim’s appeal in full. “In reviewing this petition, ‘we consider only the grounds relied upon’ by the BIA.” Singh v. Holder, 649 F.3d 1161, 1164 n.6 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (quoting Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004)). “We review legal questions de novo and factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Mairena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 1119, 1123 2 (9th Cir. 2019). “Under the substantial evidence standard, ‘administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). The agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. The BIA pointed to multiple inconsistencies in Mr. Shamim’s testimony, including where on his body he was stabbed during an altercation with Awami League members and whether he had heard about violent acts perpetrated by the BNP. The BIA found it implausible that Mr. Shamim would forget to testify about the police coming to his parents’ home to arrest him, as he had previously stated that this incident pushed him to seek asylum in the United States. Further, the BIA credited the IJ’s finding that Mr. Shamim struggled to answer basic questions about the BNP and its activities. These bases represent “specific and cogent reasons” for an adverse credibility determination, see Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010), and we …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals