Mureed Hussain v. Garland

20-1618
Mureed Hussain v. Garland
BIA
Lurye, IJ
A208 418 739
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION
TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED
AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS
COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT
FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX
OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A
PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 3rd day of May, two thousand twenty-three.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
8 Chief Judge,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 BETH ROBINSON,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 BILAL MUREED HUSSAIN,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 20-1618
18 NAC
19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Tobin Kohane, Esq., New York, NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Keith I.
28 McManus, Assistant Director; Scott
1 M. Marconda, Trial Attorney,
2 Office of Immigration Litigation,
3 United States Department of
4 Justice, Washington, DC.
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 Petitioner Bilal Mureed Hussain, a native and citizen of
10 Pakistan, seeks review of an April 24, 2020, decision of the
11 BIA affirming a July 19, 2018, decision of an Immigration
12 Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding
13 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
14 (“CAT”). In re Bilal Mureed Hussain, No. A 208-418-739
15 (B.I.A. Apr. 24, 2020), aff’g No. A 208-418-739 (Immig. Ct.
16 N.Y.C July 19, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity
17 with the underlying facts and procedural history.
18 We have considered both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for
19 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland
20 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We deny the petition
21 because Mureed Hussain has failed to exhaust or raise any
22 challenge to dispositive grounds for the agency’s decisions.
23 Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), we “may review a final order
2
1 of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all
2 administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.”
3 In addition to this statutory requirement that a petitioner
4 exhaust administrative remedies by appealing to the BIA, we
5 require a petitioner to raise to the BIA the specific issues
6 he seeks to raise in this Court. See Foster v. INS, 376 F.3d
7 75, 78 (2d Cir. 2004). While not jurisdictional, the issue
8 exhaustion requirement is “mandatory,” particularly where, as
9 here, the Government raises it as an affirmative defense.
10 Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 119–24 (2d
11 Cir. 2007).
12 Before the BIA, Hussain did not assert any challenges to
13 the IJ’s credibility findings. He argued that the IJ did not
14 acknowledge country conditions evidence that the Taliban
15 targets Shia Muslims. He also argued that the IJ failed to
16 consider the broader political context or that his family
17 could not relocate within Pakistan. 1 And he generally
18 asserted that he established a likelihood of torture. But
19 he did not address the credibility determination or allege
1The IJ did not make findings about Hussain’s ability to relocate
in Pakistan. CAR at 41–50 (IJ Dec.); see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B).
3
1 any errors in individual findings. Accordingly, Hussain
2 failed to exhaust any challenge to the adverse credibility
3 determination. See Foster, 376 F.3d at 78. The adverse
4 credibility determination is dispositive of Hussain’s claims
5 for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because
6 all three claims are based on the same factual predicate—
7 Hussain’s alleged conversion to Shia Islam and attacks he
8 allegedly suffered as a result. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444
9 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).
10 Hussain argues that general conditions in Pakistan
11 concerning the treatment of Shia Muslims alone satisfies his
12 burden to show a well-founded fear of future persecution.
13 But, while a well-founded fear of future persecution might in
14 some circumstances be established by showing membership in a
15 group against which the government has a pattern or practice
16 of persecution, see Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135,
17 142 (2d Cir. 2008), the IJ’s adverse credibility
18 determination against Hussain extended not only to his
19 anecdotes of past persecution but implicitly also extended to
20 his testimony that he converted to Shia Islam, see Siewe v.
21 Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An IJ may, either
4
1 expressly or impliedly, rely on falsus in uno [the maxim
2 “false in one thing, false in everything”] to discredit
3 evidence that does not benefit from corroboration or
4 authentication independent of the petitioner’s own
5 credibility.” (emphasis in original)). 2 Accordingly,
6 Hussain’s failure to challenge the IJ’s adverse credibility
7 determination before the BIA is fatal to his argument that he
8 may show a well-founded fear of future persecution based
9 solely on country conditions evidence. For the foregoing
10 reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending
11 motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.
12 FOR THE COURT:
13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
14 Clerk of Court
2Hussain additionally argues that the IJ exerted pressure to
conclude his merits hearing early, which hastiness exacerbated
the IJ’s misunderstanding of the facts of his case. But, again,
Hussain did not contest any specific factual finding of the IJ
before the BIA, meaning that no such a claim has been preserved
for review. To the extent Hussain argues that the IJ violated
his constitutional right to due process, he has failed to
demonstrate how the IJ’s attempts to streamline his testimony
during the merits hearing deprived him of “a full and fair
opportunity to present [his] claims” or “otherwise deprived
[him] of fundamental fairness.” Burger v. Gonzalez, 498 F.3d
131, 134 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
5