USCA11 Case: 19-15094 Date Filed: 10/07/2020 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-15094 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A215-735-001 MAEEN UDDIN, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (October 7, 2020) Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 19-15094 Date Filed: 10/07/2020 Page: 2 of 9 Facing removal from the United States for entering and remaining without authorization, Maeen Uddin, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Uddin claimed that he had twice been physically attacked by members of the ruling Awami League party due to his active membership in an opposition party, and that he feared persecution by the Awami League if he returned to Bangladesh. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied his applications and ordered his removal. The IJ determined that Uddin’s testimony was not credible for several reasons, including that he was evasive and gave inconsistent answers. Uddin appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and determined that Uddin failed to meet the standard for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Uddin now petitions this Court for review of the BIA’s decision. We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopted or agreed with the IJ’s opinion. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 947–48 (11th Cir. 2010). We review the IJ’s opinion to the extent that the BIA has found that the IJ’s reasons were supported by the record, and we review the BIA’s decision with regard to those matters on which it rendered its own opinion and reasoning. See Seck v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 663 F.3d 1356, 1364 (11th Cir. 2011). 2 USCA11 Case: 19-15094 Date Filed: 10/07/2020 Page: 3 of 9 Here, we will review both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions to the extent of their agreement. See id. We review factual findings, including credibility determinations, under the substantial-evidence test. Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1254–55 (11th Cir. 2006); see D-Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814, 818 (11th Cir. 2004) (“The trier of fact must determine credibility, and [we] may not substitute [our] judgment for that of the BIA with respect to credibility findings.”). Review for substantial evidence is deferential and is based on a construction of the record evidence that is most favorable to the agency’s decision. Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1350–51 (11th Cir. 2009). We must affirm the agency’s decision “if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Id. at 1351 (quotation marks omitted). Findings of fact may be reversed only if the record compels a different result. Id. In other words, the mere fact that the record may support ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals