Mukumov v. Barr


FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 24, 2019 _________________________________ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court SHEKHROZ MUKUMOV, Petitioner, v. No. 18-9569 (Petition for Review) WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Shekhroz Mukumov, a native of Uzbekistan, petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming a decision by the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), we deny the petition for review. * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. BACKGROUND In September 2017, thirty-year-old Mukumov, along with his wife and two children, entered the United States without valid entry documents. Upon arrival, he expressed a fear of returning to his homeland of Uzbekistan based on threats from his former employer, the wealthy owner of a construction company. In May 2017, Mukumov was overseeing the delivery and inventory of materials necessary for the construction of a residential building, when he noticed that materials documented as delivered were missing from the warehouse. He raised the issue with the construction site manager, who denied knowledge of the missing materials, as well as the owner of the company, who told him to focus on his job and not to bother him. Mukumov resumed working, believing he would eventually receive the materials, but when they didn’t arrive, he again approached his employer and expressed concerns about the structural integrity of the building. His boss again told him to mind his own business and focus on his work. In June 2017, a government inspection committee visited the building site to ensure compliance with construction standards. Mukumov relayed to the committee his concerns about the structural integrity of the building due to the missing materials. The following day, Mukumov’s employer fired him for talking to the committee and said that because the committee learned of the missing materials, Mukumov would have to pay for them. Mukumov then began receiving threatening telephone calls in which the callers, associates of his former employer, demanded he pay $70,000 to cover the materials or else they would harm him and his family. 2 Thereafter, Mukumov was confronted outside a store by two men who forced him into a car and took him to a train station, where they beat him. The assailants said he owed money to his former ...

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