Morshed Alam v. U.S. Attorney General

Case: 17-12603 Date Filed: 05/16/2018 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-12603 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A206-227-187 MORSHED ALAM, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (May 16, 2018) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-12603 Date Filed: 05/16/2018 Page: 2 of 10 Morshed Alam petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) decision affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his claims for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). In his petition, Alam principally argues that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s finding that he could reasonably be expected to relocate to another part of Bangladesh. Alam also contends that he is eligible for asylum because he suffered past persecution on account of his political activities and has a reasonable fear of future persecution, that the BIA erred in finding that he had not met his burden to establish a claim for withholding of removal, and that he qualifies for relief under the CAT because there is a clear probability he would suffer torture in Bangladesh. I We review only the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that it expressly adopts the IJ’s opinion. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). To the extent the BIA adopts the reasoning of the IJ, we review the IJ’s decision as well. Id. Issues not reached by the BIA in its final order of removal are not properly before us. Lopez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1341, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007); Donawa v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 735 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 2013). In addition, claims that are not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned, and their 2 Case: 17-12603 Date Filed: 05/16/2018 Page: 3 of 10 merits will not be addressed. Cole v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 712 F.3d 517, 530 (11th Cir. 2013). We lack jurisdiction to “consider issues that could have been, but were not properly raised in immigration proceedings and appealed to the BIA.” Bing Quan Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 881 F.3d 860, 867 (11th Cir. 2018). We review legal claims, such as whether the BIA applied the wrong legal standard or failed to give reasoned consideration to an issue, de novo. Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 799 (11th Cir. 2016). The BIA need not address every piece of evidence presented by the petitioner, and instead, “need only consider the issues raised and announce [its] decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that [it has] heard and thought and not merely reacted.” Cole, 712 F.3d at 534 (internal quotation marks omitted). We review factual determinations under the substantial-evidence test, which requires us to “view the ...

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