Rahman v. Garland ( 2022 )

Case: 21-60562 Document: 00516407073 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 26, 2022
No. 21-60562
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Md Maksudur Rahman,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. 201 747 870
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Md Maksudur Rahman, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions
for review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60562 Document: 00516407073 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2022
No. 21-60562
Convention Against Torture (CAT). He asserts, incorrectly, that the BIA
erred by requiring him to support his claims with corroborating evidence
even though his testimony was deemed credible. See Rui Yang v. Holder, 664
F.3d 580, 587 (5th Cir. 2011).
In addition, Rahman challenges the BIA’s conclusion that he failed to
adequately explain why he could not provide corroborative evidence;
however, he does not address the BIA’s reasons or cite evidence that refutes
them. Instead, he references his testimony that he could not obtain
corroborating evidence during the pandemic lockdown in Bangladesh and
that, prior to then, he did not know what documents he needed. That
testimony does not explain why Rahman’s attorney was unable to advise him
regarding the necessary documentation and obtain it for him with the
assistance of his cousin in the United States during the year before the
pandemic lockdown began. He fails to show that the record compels a
conclusion that the evidence was not available. See id. at 587-88. We do not
consider his contentions that he otherwise satisfied the requirements for
asylum and withholding of removal, as the BIA did not reach those issues.
See Aviles-Tavera v. Garland, 22 F.4th 478, 485-86 (5th Cir. 2022).
The BIA rejected Rahman’s CAT claim in part because he failed to
satisfy his burden of proving that a Bangladeshi official would consent to or
acquiescence in his torture. He abandons any challenge to that conclusion by
failing to adequately brief it. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8); Rui Yang, 664
F.3d at 589; Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Because
the issue is dispositive of his CAT claim, see Iruegas-Valdez v. Yates, 846 F.3d
806, 812 (5th Cir. 2017), we do not consider his assertion that he showed a
likelihood of future harm rising to the level of torture, see INS v. Bagamasbad,
429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
The petition is DENIED.
2