Sorbnam v. INS

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-60715
Summary Calendar
MEENA SORBNAM,
Petitioner,
versus
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA No. A73 568 360)
--------------------
August 23, 1999
Before POLITZ, HIGGINBOTHAM, and WIENER, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner Meena Sorbnam, a citizen of Bangladesh, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
dismissing her appeal from an Immigration Judge’s denial of her
application for asylum. Sorbnam contends that she is entitled to
asylum because (1) she was persecuted for her political opinions
while living in Bangladesh, and (2) she has a well-founded fear
that she will be persecuted if she returns there. In particular,
Sorbnam asserts that the BIA did not give meaningful consideration
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
to all the evidence showing that her fear of future persecution is
well-founded.
The Attorney General has the discretion to grant asylum to a
“refugee,” or a person who is outside of his or her country and is
unable or unwilling to return “because of persecution or a well-
founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d
747, 749 (5th Cir. 1994). We will uphold a factual finding by the
BIA that an alien is not eligible for asylum if it is supported by
substantial evidence. Gomez-Mejia v. INS, 56 F.3d 700, 702 (5th
Cir. 1995).
Although Sorbnam received numerous telephone threats while
living in Bangladesh, the record does not establish that the
threats were related to her political opinions. Further, even
though Sorbnam was arrested and detained for a few hours by police
after she participated in a political rally, she suffered no
physical abuse; rather, the police merely threatened to harm her
the next time she participated in such a rally. Accordingly, there
is substantial evidence supporting the BIA’s determination that
Sorbnam did not suffer persecution in Bangladesh because of her
political opinions. See Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 583-84
(5th Cir. 1996).
We generally review the BIA’s decision procedurally as well
as substantively to ensure that the complaining alien has received
full and fair consideration of all circumstances that give rise to
2
his claims. Id. at 585. In the present case, the findings and
conclusions of the Immigration Judge were not adopted by the BIA,
and its own findings are quite limited. Thus, in considering
Sorbnam’s claim to a well-founded fear of persecution, the BIA
specifically addressed only Sorbnam’s testimonial evidence; it has
provided no indication that it considered the substantial
documentary evidence regarding conditions in Bangladesh. The BIA’s
decision therefore fails to reflect meaningful consideration of all
the relevant and substantial evidence supporting Sorbnam’s fear of
future persecution claim. See id. at 584-85. Consequently, we
grant Sorbnam’s petition for review, vacate the order of the BIA,
and remand her case for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion. In so doing, however, we do not imply the result that the
BIA should reach on remand, one way or the other.
PETITION GRANTED; ORDER VACATED; CASE REMANDED.
3