Mohammed Islam v. Loretta Lynch ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 1 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAMMED S ISLAM, No. 15-73798
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-302-856
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Mohammed S Islam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
*
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).
jurisdiction is governed by 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), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
We do not consider the material attached to the opening brief that is not part
of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir.
1996) (en banc).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that, even if Islam
testified credibly, the harm he experienced did not rise to the level of persecution.
See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60 (petitioner failed to establish past persecution
where he was beaten and robbed on two occasions and accosted by a mob).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Islam did not
establish it would be unreasonable for him to relocate. See Gomes v. Gonzales,
429 F.3d 1264, 1267 (9th Cir. 2005) (lack of persecution after relocation supported
finding that petitioners could relocate again safely). Thus, we deny the petition
for review with respect to Islam’s claim for asylum.
Because Islam failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily cannot
meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
2 15-73798
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Islam
failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government of Bangladesh if returned. See Go v.
Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2011) (credible testimony and country
reports describing generalized evidence of mistreatment did not compel reversal of
agency’s denial of CAT).
Finally, Islam’s challenges to his continued detention and the agency’s
denial of bond are not properly before us. See Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d
1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing procedure for challenging agency’s bond
determinations).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 15-73798