Mohammed Bikramuddin v. William Barr ( 2020 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 5 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAMMED BIKRAMUDDIN; et al., No. 14-72864
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A098-458-017
A098-458-018
v. A098-458-019
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 4, 2020**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Mohammed Bikramuddin,1 a citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming the Immigration Judge’s order
*
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).
1
Bikramuddin’s wife, Husneara, and son, Tarik Hassan, are derivative
beneficiaries of Bikramuddin’s asylum claims.
denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252, and we deny the petition for review. Because the parties are familiar with
the facts we need not recount them here. We review adverse credibility
determinations for substantial evidence, see Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038,
1043 (9th Cir. 2001), and we conclude that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Bikramuddin was not credible.2
Bikramuddin was found not credible based on significant, material
omissions that went to the heart of his claim for asylum based on political opinion.
See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2004). Bikramuddin omitted any
mention of his political campaign in his initial asylum application, and he did not
testify to threatening and politically-motivated events that apparently occurred at
his home that were included in his application. Given this adverse credibility
finding and absence of other evidence in the record supporting his claim of
persecution based on his political opinion, we deny the petition for review of his
claims for asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2); see
also Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION DENIED.
2
Because Bikramuddin filed his petition before May of 2005, the provisions
of the REAL ID Act do not apply. See Real ID Act, Pub. L. 109-13, 119 Stat. 302(2005).
2