Filed: Jul. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 14-2529 Sattar Nessa v. Lynch BIA Vomacka, IJ A094 939 002 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
Summary: 14-2529 Sattar Nessa v. Lynch BIA Vomacka, IJ A094 939 002 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 T..
More
14-2529
Sattar Nessa v. Lynch
BIA
Vomacka, IJ
A094 939 002
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 TO 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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 2nd day of July, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 REENA RAGGI,
8 GERARD E. LYNCH,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 M D MAIN SATTAR NESSA, AKA MOHAMMED
14 MAIN SATTAR NESSA, AKA MOHAMMED
15 MAIN UDDIN,
16 Petitioner,
17
18 v. 14-2529
19 NAC
20
21 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
22 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
23 Respondent.
24 _____________________________________
25
26 FOR PETITIONER: David J. Rodkin, New York, New York.
27
28 FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant
29 Attorney General; Justin R. Marken,
1 Senior Litigation Counsel; Robert D.
2 Tennyson, Trial Attorney, Office of
3 Immigration Litigation, United
4 States Department of Justice,
5 Washington, D.C.
6
7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
10 DENIED.
11 Petitioner M D Main Sattar Nessa, a native and citizen of
12 Bangladesh, seeks review of a June 20, 2014, decision of the
13 BIA affirming a June 28, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge
14 (“IJ”) denying Sattar Nessa’s application for asylum,
15 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
16 Torture (“CAT”). In re M D Main Sattar Nessa, a.k.a. Mohammed
17 Main Sattar Nessa, a.k.a. Mohammed Main Uddin, No. A094 939 002
18 (B.I.A. June 20, 2014), aff’g No. A094 939 002 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.
19 City June 28, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with
20 the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
21 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the
22 IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S.
23 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The
24 applicable standards of review are well established. See 8
2
1 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510,
2 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
3 The regulations require IJs to exercise the Attorney
4 General’s discretion to deny asylum to applicants who establish
5 eligibility based solely on past persecution when the
6 Government establishes a fundamental change in circumstances
7 sufficient to rebut the presumption of well-founded fear. 8
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). We review the agency’s factual
9 findings regarding changed country conditions for substantial
10 evidence. Lecaj v. Holder,
616 F.3d 111, 114-115 (2d Cir.
11 2010).
12 Here, the IJ reasonably found that although Sattar Nessa
13 credibly established past persecution by the Bangladesh
14 Nationalist Party (“BNP”) based on his membership in the Awami
15 League (“AL”), entitling him to a presumption of future
16 persecution, that presumption was rebutted by changed
17 circumstances in Bangladesh. The IJ reasonably relied on human
18 rights reports on Bangladesh issued by the U.S. Department of
19 State, and we have held that such reports are “usually the best
20 available source[s] of information on country conditions.”
21 Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
471 F.3d 315, 341 (2d
3
1 Cir. 2006) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted));
2 see also Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395, 400 (2d Cir. 2006).
3 Although the 2007 State Department Report suggested that
4 conditions in Bangladesh had worsened under BNP rule, the 2008
5 State Department Report provided that the AL had won the
6 majority of parliamentary seats in the national election, which
7 was “free and fair,” though “marked by isolated irregularities
8 and sporadic violence.” The 2008 Report identified no instance
9 of recent violence against AL members by the BNP.
10 The 2012 State Department Report on Bangladesh also
11 provided substantial support for the IJ’s findings. It showed
12 that the AL had remained in power since the election four years
13 earlier. Although the 2012 Report did suggest that
14 “politically motivated violence remained a problem,” it
15 reported few specific instances of such violence and described
16 those instances as internal to the parties or linked to criminal
17 activities. Furthermore, the only specific example of
18 politically motived violence discussed in the 2012 Report was
19 committed by “members of the student wing of the ruling party,”
20 who “beat and killed a passerby . . . because they thought he
21 belonged to the opposition party.” See Jian Hui Shao v.
4
1 Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 153 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting that “isolated
2 reports” of persecution were insufficient to suggest that an
3 alien would be singled out for persecution). Contrary to
4 Sattar Nessa’s argument, the IJ considered the particular
5 circumstances of his case, and determined that no contrary or
6 countervailing evidence was presented to undermine the findings
7 of the State Department Reports. See
Lecaj, 616 F.3d at 115-16.
8 Therefore, the agency’s finding that the presumption that
9 Sattar Nessa will be persecuted in Bangladesh was rebutted by
10 changed country conditions is supported by substantial
11 evidence. This finding formed an adequate basis to deny
12 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
Id. at 119-20.
13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
14 DENIED.
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
