Kib Ria Golam v. U.S. Attorney General ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •             Case: 19-13268   Date Filed: 04/06/2020   Page: 1 of 4
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 19-13268
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    Agency No. A215-975-148
    KIB RIA GOLAM,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent.
    ________________________
    Petition for Review of a Decision of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    ________________________
    (April 6, 2020)
    Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR and HULL, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Case: 19-13268     Date Filed: 04/06/2020   Page: 2 of 4
    Kib Golam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the
    order affirming the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of
    removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and for relief under the United
    Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading
    Treatment or Punishment. 
    8 U.S.C. §§ 1158
    (b), 1231(b)(3). Golam applied for
    asylum and withholding of removal on the ground that he had suffered past
    persecution on account of his political activities, but the Board of Immigration
    Appeals agreed with the finding of the immigration judge that Golam was not
    credible. We dismiss in part and deny in part Golam’s petition.
    Golam argues that he is eligible for relief under the Convention, but we lack
    jurisdiction to consider that argument. The Board found that Golam did “not
    meaningfully challenge the Immigration Judge’s denial of protection under the
    Convention . . . [and] deem[ed] the denial of that form of protection waived.”
    “[A]bsent a cognizable excuse or exception, we lack jurisdiction to consider claims
    that have not been raised before the [Board].” Amaya–Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y
    Gen., 
    463 F.3d 1247
    , 1250 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    We dismiss that part of Golam’s petition seeking review of the denial of his
    application for relief under the Convention.
    Substantial evidence supports the finding that Golam was not credible, and
    the Board identified specific and cogent reasons to support that finding. Chen v.
    2
    Case: 19-13268     Date Filed: 04/06/2020   Page: 3 of 4
    U.S. Att’y Gen., 
    463 F.3d 1228
    , 1230–31 (11th Cir. 2006). Golam based his claim
    of persecution on his membership in the Liberal Democratic Party and incidents
    involving the opposition ruling party, the Awami League, but there were several
    inconsistencies in Golam’s credible-fear interview with an asylum officer, his
    written application for asylum and withholding of removal, and his testimony at his
    removal hearing regarding his knowledge of the Party and his interactions with
    members of the League. During his interview and in his application, Golam stated
    that he was attacked and beaten twice, but he later testified at his removal hearing
    that he was beaten “many times.” Golam told his interviewer that nothing
    happened to him after he moved to Dhaka, where he turned off all telephones and
    stayed inside a house, but Golam testified at his removal hearing that he did not
    feel safe in Dhaka and received threatening telephone calls. And although Golam
    professed to be a member of the Party, the immigration judge found that Golam
    “show[ed] a shocking lack of knowledge of” the political system in Bangladesh.
    Golam described the nature of the Party as “a political party in Bangladesh,” and
    when asked to explain its policies, stated that it was “a very good party” that
    “do[es] good for the . . . poor people and . . . the development of the country[,]”
    “always give[s] . . . plenty to the good thing,” and does “not accept any illegal
    things happens in the country.” Golam fails to explain how this record would
    compel a reasonable fact finder to reverse the adverse credibility finding against
    3
    Case: 19-13268     Date Filed: 04/06/2020   Page: 4 of 4
    him and conclude that he established eligibility for asylum relief or withholding of
    removal. See 
    id. at 1233
    .
    We DISMISS Golam’s petition for review of the denial of relief under the
    Convention and DENY his petition for review of the denial of asylum and
    withholding of removal.
    DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-13268

Filed Date: 4/6/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/6/2020