Raheel Rehman v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 18-1577 RAHEEL REHMAN, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A209-870-724) Immigration Judge: Honorable John B. Carle ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 9, 2018 Before: AMBRO, SCIRICA and RENDELL, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: December 28, 2018) OPINION RENDELL, Circuit Judge: Petitioner, Raheel Rehman, argues that the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) erred in upholding the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) conclusion that Rehman was not credible and is ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Rehman also argues that the BIA abused its discretion and violated his right to due process in denying his motion for remand. Finding no error, we will affirm the BIA. I. Factual and Procedural Background Rehman is a Sunni Muslim and citizen and native of Pakistan. He entered the United States illegally in December of 2016 and was apprehended by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) shortly thereafter. DHS processed Rehman for expedited removal, but when Rehman claimed to be afraid of returning to Pakistan, DHS gave him a credible fear interview. Rehman was provided with an interpreter for the interview, and both parties affirmed that they understood one another. Rehman stated in the credible fear interview that he was afraid to return to Pakistan because of the terrorism and war in the country. He stated that he had never been physically harmed in Pakistan. When asked to describe the worst thing to have happened to him, he stated that he had been very close to a bomb blast. However, Rehman later told the interviewer that he had been beaten by police multiple times for no reason, that this is “normal with police,” and that he feared he would be harmed by police if he returned to Pakistan “because this is routine.” AR 366-67. Rehman also stated that he felt harmed or threatened in Pakistan because of his religion. He spoke of the “Shia and Sunni war” in Pakistan and stated that he witnessed an incident in which a “Shia master was attacked” and “about 200 people” were killed. AR 368. When asked if there was anything else important to his claim, Rehman 2 answered that he thought the interviewer “understood [his] case” and “that is all.” AR 369. DHS found that Rehman expressed a credible fear of torture in Pakistan. DHS served Rehman with a Notice to Appear, commencing proceedings before the Immigration Court under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). At Rehman’s first hearing, the Immigration Judge sustained the charge of removability. Rehman informed the IJ that he intended to apply for asylum, and the IJ instructed him to file the asylum application with the court at his next hearing. At Rehman’s next hearing, he requested a 90-day continuance so that he could obtain evidence from a family member to support his application. He ...

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