Saidur Rahman v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 18a0123n.06 Nos. 16-4198/17-3720 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED SAIDUR RAHMAN, ) Mar 12, 2018 ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, United ) APPEALS States Attorney General, ) ) Respondent. ) ) BEFORE: BOGGS, BATCHELDER, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) apprehended Saidur Rahman when he crossed the border between Mexico and Texas. He did not have permission to enter the country, so DHS sought to deport him. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). In response, Rahman applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In his application, Rahman asserted that he feared persecution for his political affiliation if he returned to Bangladesh. He explained that he was a member of the Bangladeshi opposition party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”), and, as a result, had been attacked by members of the ruling party, the Awami League, on three separate occasions. Rahman feared that if he returned he would be beaten, arrested, tortured, or killed by supporters of the Awami League or the government. Nos. 16-4198/17-3720 Rahman v. Sessions Despite finding Rahman’s testimony to be credible, the immigration judge determined that Rahman was not eligible for asylum because he had failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. Specifically, the immigration judge found that Rahman did not show that his alleged mistreatment (1) was inflicted by the Bangladeshi government or an organization that the Bangladeshi government was unable or unwilling to control or (2) was sufficiently severe to constitute persecution. The immigration judge further determined that Rahman’s fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable and that he failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution of BNP members. And because the immigration judge found that Rahman was not eligible for asylum, the immigration judge concluded that he necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Finally, the immigration judge determined that Rahman did not establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured upon return to Bangladesh and that he thus did not warrant CAT protection. So the immigration judge denied Rahman’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection and ordered his removal to Bangladesh. Rahman appealed the immigration judge’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA affirmed. Rahman also filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings, which the BIA denied. Rahman now petitions this court for review of both. No. 16-4198: Applications for Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection Because the BIA issued its own decision but adopted some of the immigration judge’s reasoning, we review both orders. Harmon v. Holder, 758 F.3d 728, 732 (6th Cir. 2014). We review any factual determinations under the highly deferential substantial-evidence standard, treating them as “conclusive” and reversing only if ...

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