Case: 19-14640 Date Filed: 06/24/2020 Page: 1 of 17 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-14640 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A215-975-080 NURUL ISLAM, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (June 24, 2020) Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Nurul Islam petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision Case: 19-14640 Date Filed: 06/24/2020 Page: 2 of 17 denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal.1 The BIA concluded that Islam’s testimony was not credible and that, even if his testimony was credible, he failed to show that he had suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution. After careful review, we grant the petition. I. Islam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, was charged with being removable because he entered the United States without authorization. Islam admitted those allegations and conceded removability. Through counsel, he filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal, stating that he had been attacked and threatened by members of the Awami League (“League”), the ruling political party in Bangladesh, based on his membership in the rival Liberal Democratic Party (“LDP”), and that he feared persecution in Bangladesh. A. At the merits hearing, Islam testified as follows. He was a 40-year-old Bangladeshi native who left his wife and three children in Bangladesh because he believed the present government and ruling party would kill him for his political 1 Islam also applied for relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), but the BIA concluded that this claim had been waived because Islam did not raise it in his brief challenging the IJ’s decision. Although Islam now contends that the BIA erred in dismissing this claim, we lack jurisdiction to review an issue that was not raised before the BIA. Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1297 (11th Cir. 2015); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). And here, Islam failed to address the denial of his claim for CAT relief before the BIA, so we lack jurisdiction to review this claim. See Indrawati, 779 F.3d at 1297. 2 Case: 19-14640 Date Filed: 06/24/2020 Page: 3 of 17 activities with an opposition political party. He testified about several instances where he was attacked or threatened by League members for his political activities with the LDP. Islam was first threatened by League members on December 16, 2016. After he went to an LDP political rally on that date, four or five League members went to his home looking for him. He was away at the time, and they told his parents that they had seen him at the rally and would kill him if he did not leave the LDP and join the League. Then, on October 26, 2017, after an LDP meeting, Islam was accosted and attacked by five League members ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals