Rahman Minhazar v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 17 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAHMAN MINHAZAR, AKA Minhazur No. 19-70533
Rahman Chowdhury,
Agency No. A087-997-200
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 9, 2020**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Rahman Minhazar, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s partial adverse credibility
determination based on Minhazar’s omission from his credible fear interview that
he was harmed in the year 2000. See id. (adverse credibility determination
supported under “the totality of circumstances”); see also Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d
837, 843 (9th Cir. 2019) (where an asylum officer’s notes have sufficient indicia of
reliability, “an IJ may consider inconsistencies between what a petitioner said to an
asylum officer and the petitioner’s testimony”); Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d
1176, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 2016) (prior omission supported adverse credibility
determination where new allegations were more compelling). Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s determination that Minhazar’s documentary evidence was
insufficient to establish that he was harmed in the year 2000. See Garcia v.
Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner’s documentary evidence was
insufficient to rehabilitate credibility or independently support claim). Minhazar’s
explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that the harm
2 19-70533
Minhazar experienced between the years 2005 and 2009 did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003)
(persecution is “an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment
our society regards as offensive” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Substantial evidence further supports the agency’s determination that Minhazar
failed to show that his fear of future persecution is objectively reasonable. See Gu
v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to present
“compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of
persecution”).
Thus, Minhazar’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Minhazar failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Bangladesh. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
As stated in the court’s May 24, 2019 order, the stay of removal remains in
place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-70533