Orrashid v. Garland ( 2021 )

Case: 20-60420 Document: 00516019045 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/17/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-60420 September 17, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Harun Orrashid,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A203 652 891
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Harun Orrashid, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for
review of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his
appeal from the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-60420 Document: 00516019045 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/17/2021
No. 20-60420
We review the decision of the BIA and will consider the immigration
judge’s (IJ) decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Shaikh v.
Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009). In addition, we review questions
of law de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Id. Under the
substantial evidence standard, “[t]he alien must show that the evidence was
so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Wang
v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009).
Regarding the denial of his application for asylum, Orrashid’s
argument that he had established past persecution need not be addressed
because the BIA assumed that he had established past persecution. See I.N.S.
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976). Orrashid further contends that
the BIA erred by determining that he could not show a well-founded fear of
future persecution based on the IJ’s finding that Orrashid could safely
relocate in Bangladesh. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii). When Orrashid, a
member of the Liberal Democratic Party, fled his hometown after he was
twice beaten by members of the Awami League, he lived peacefully with
relatives in other Bangladeshi towns before departing for the United States.1
Thus, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that
Orrashid did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his
ability to relocate within Bangladesh. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 537; see also
§ 1208.13(b)(2)(ii). Because Orrashid has not established eligibility for
asylum, he necessarily has not established eligibility for withholding of
removal. See Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2019).
1
To the extent Orrashid challenges the IJ’s finding regarding the potential for
relocation within Bangladesh, we lack jurisdiction to address it because Orrashid failed to
exhaust the issue by not contesting it before the BIA. See Mirza v. Garland, 996 F.3d 747,
753 (5th Cir. 2021).
2
Case: 20-60420 Document: 00516019045 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/17/2021
No. 20-60420
Finally, as Orrashid did not challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT relief
before the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to review this unexhausted issue. See
Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. 2009).
The petition for review is DISMISSED IN PART and DENIED
IN PART.
3