Mohammed Islam v. U.S. Attorney General

Case: 19-13074 Date Filed: 03/26/2020 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-13074 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A201-408-406 MUHAMMED ISLAM, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (March 26, 2020) Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 19-13074 Date Filed: 03/26/2020 Page: 2 of 8 Muhammed Islam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of an order affirming the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and for relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b), 1231(b)(3). The Board of Immigration Appeals agreed with the immigration judge that Islam failed to establish that he suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution in Bangladesh based on his affiliation with the Liberal Democratic Party or that he was likely to be tortured if he returned to Bangladesh. We deny Islam’s petition for review. The Board affirmed the decision of the immigration judge, so we review both their decisions. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 947–48 (11th Cir. 2010). Our review of the decision is “limited” by “the highly deferential substantial evidence test,” under which “we must affirm if the decision of the Immigration Judge is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 1237 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under the substantial evidence test, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision of the immigration judge and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision. Id. at 1236. We can reverse “only when the record compels a reversal; the mere fact that the record 2 Case: 19-13074 Date Filed: 03/26/2020 Page: 3 of 8 may support a contrary conclusion is not enough to justify a reversal of the administrative findings.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). To qualify for asylum, Islam must prove that he is a “refugee,” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A), who is unable or unwilling to return to his country of nationality “because of persecution or a well–founded fear of persecution on account of” his “membership in a particular social group,” id. § 1101(a)(42)(A). He must present specific and credible evidence of persecution, Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1257 (11th Cir. 2006), which is an “extreme concept” requiring evidence of more than harassment or “a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation,” Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005). We evaluate the harms suffered cumulatively in determining whether Islam was persecuted. De Santamaria v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 999, 1008 (11th Cir. 2008); Mejia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 498 F.3d 1253, 1258 ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals