NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHAKHAWAT HOSSAIN, No. 16-73734 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-159-768 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Shakhawat Hossain, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusions that the threats and harassment Hossain suffered in Bangladesh did not rise to the level of persecution, see Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2005) (threats did not compel finding of past persecution), and that Hossain failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted on account of his political opinion, see Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Hossain’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Hossain’s CAT claim because he failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government in Bangladesh. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject Hossain’s contentions that the BIA ignored evidence, or violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (error required to prevail on due process claim). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-73734 16-73734 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Shakhawat Hossain v. Jefferson Sessions 23 March 2018 Agency Unpublished 62a697a09676126a210d6ed0ca1b736e9ea29b43
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals