NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 18-2960 ___________ SHARIFUL ISLAM MINTU Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A042-951-328) Immigration Judge: Honorable John B. Carle ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 3, 2019 Before: MCKEE, COWEN and RENDELL, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: July 17, 2019) ___________ OPINION * ___________ PER CURIAM Shariful Mintu petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). For the reasons below, we will deny the petition for review. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not Mintu, a citizen of Bangladesh, entered the United States in 1991 as a lawful permanent resident. In 2017, he was charged as removable as an aggravated felon for his conviction for conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Proceeding pro se, Mintu applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He argued that he would be persecuted in Bangladesh on account of his conversion from Islam to Christianity as well as his marriage to a Christian woman. He also asserted that he would be tortured. An Immigration Judge (IJ) sustained the charges of removability, having determined that Mintu attempted to cause a loss of more than $10K with his conspiracy to commit bank fraud. After a hearing, another IJ denied Mintu relief from removal. The IJ thoroughly discussed the evidence in the record and found that Mintu had not shown a clear probability of being persecuted by his family or others in Bangladesh on account of his religious conversion or interfaith marriage. The IJ also found that Mintu had not met his burden of demonstrating that he would be tortured if returned to Bangladesh. Moreover, the IJ determined that any torture would not be with the acquiescence of the government. On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) agreed with the IJ that the Government need only show that the potential loss from the fraud was more than $10K. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s finding that Mintu had not shown that it was likely that his life would be threatened in Bangladesh or that he would be tortured with the acquiescence of constitute binding precedent. 2 a public official. Mintu filed a petition for review, and we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Removability We exercise de novo review over the BIA’s determination that Mintu is an aggravated felon. Singh v. Att’y Gen., 677 F.3d 503, 508 (3d Cir. 2012). Mintu was charged as removable as an aggravated felon pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) and (U) for his conviction for conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Under subsection (M)(i), an offense that involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10K is an aggravated felony. Subsection (U) provides that an attempt or conspiracy to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals