Amran Ahmed v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 16 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AMRAN AHMED, No. 15-73416 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-118-571 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney Gen- eral, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 14, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: McKEOWN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and VRATIL,*** Dis- trict Judge. Amran Ahmed, a native of Bangladesh, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying his application for asylum and for relief * 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 Kathryn H. Vratil, United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Although Ahmed sought withhold- ing of removal in the proceedings before the BIA and the immigration judge (“IJ”), he does not challenge the denial of withholding on appeal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Because the BIA’s decision partially relies on the IJ’s rea- soning, we review both decisions. Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We review legal questions de novo and factual findings for substantial evi- dence. Aden v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 1073, 1079 (9th Cir. 2021). We partially dismiss and partially deny the petition. While this appeal was pending, we granted Ahmed’s motion to lift his stay of removal. According to a recent letter from the government, the Department of Homeland Security removed Ahmed from the United States after we lifted the stay. When he left the United States, Ahmed became ineligible for relief under CAT. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(4) (“Protection under the Convention Against Torture will be granted either in the form of withholding of removal or in the form of deferral of removal.”). We dismiss Ahmed’s petition for review of the denial of CAT protec- tion. We deny Ahmed’s petition for review of the denial of asylum. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on “significant and relevant discrepancies” in Ahmed’s application, testimony, and interview with an officer of the Department of Homeland Security. Lata v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 1241, 2 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). The IJ “provid[ed] specific instances in the record that form[ed] the basis [for her] adverse credibility determination.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010). Ahmed’s explanations do not compel a con- trary result. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that Ahmed’s mistreatment did not rise to the level of persecution, and that Ahmed failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019–21 (9th Cir. 2006). The fact that Ahmed’s attackers said nothing during the attacks, and that Ahmed described one beating as “not that …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals