Filed: Dec. 11, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 08-4340-ag Al Mamun v. Holder BIA A073 181 838 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDE
Summary: 08-4340-ag Al Mamun v. Holder BIA A073 181 838 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDER..
More
08-4340-ag
Al Mamun v. Holder
BIA
A073 181 838
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS
FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1
AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A
LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST
ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION:
“(SUMMARY ORDER).” A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER
TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED
BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT
HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE
ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE
DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 11 th day of December, two thousand nine.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 HON. DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 HON. ROGER J. MINER,
10 HON. REENA RAGGI,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _______________________________________
13
14 SHAMIM AL MAMUN, a/k/a SHAMIN MARUM,
15 a/k/a SHAMIN MAMUN,
16 Petitioner,
17
18 v. 08-4340-ag
19 NAC
20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., *
21 U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
22 HOMELAND SECURITY,
23 Respondents.
24 _______________________________________
*
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is
automatically substituted for former Attorney General
Michael B. Mukasey as a respondent in this case.
1 FOR PETITIONER: Barbara J. Brandes, New York, New
2 York.
3
4 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
5 General, Civil Division, Carol
6 Federighi, Senior Litigation
7 Counsel, Jonathan Robbins, Trial
8 Attorney, Office of Immigration
9 Litigation, Washington, DC.
10
11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
12 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
13 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for
14 review is DENIED.
15 Shamim Al Mamun, a native and citizen of Bangladesh,
16 seeks review of an August 5, 2008 order of the BIA denying
17 his motion to reopen removal proceedings. In re Shamim Al
18 Mamun, No. A073 181 838 (B.I.A. Aug. 5, 2008). We assume
19 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
20 procedural history of the case.
21 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
22 abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d
23 Cir. 2005) (per curiam); Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales,
439 F.3d
24 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006).
25 An individual seeking to reopen proceedings is required
26 to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief he is
27 seeking, and his failure to do so provides a proper basis
2
1 for the agency to deny his motion. See INS v. Abudu, 485
2 U.S. 94, 104 (1988); Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464,
3 472 (B.I.A. 1992). We conclude that the BIA did not abuse
4 its discretion in denying Al Mamun’s motion to reopen, as it
5 reasonably found that he failed to establish prima facie
6 eligibility for relief. See
Abudu, 485 U.S. at 104.
7 Al Mamun argues that the BIA failed to consider the
8 evidence he submitted indicating that Chowdhury Tanvir Ahmed
9 Siddiqui, the person who would allegedly persecute Al Mamun
10 should he be returned to Bangladesh, had climbed the ranks
11 of the Bangladeshi National Party (“BNP”) and had the power
12 to have him killed. However, the BIA reasonably found that
13 the evidence Al Mamun submitted “suggest[s] that [Siddiqui]
14 is not part of the caretaker government because the
15 documents indicate that Chowdhury Siddiqui led a faction of
16 the BNP in a dialogue with the Election Commission and the
17 government.” Al Mamun argues that he is eligible for
18 asylum, even if Siddiqui and the BNP are not part of the
19 caretaker government, because Siddiqui has power and
20 influence over the BNP, and the government is unable or
21 unwilling to control him. This argument is unavailing, as
22 Al Mamun fails to identify specific evidence in the record
3
1 to establish Siddiqui’s prominence in Bangladesh’s political
2 landscape, and he fails to explain what relationship
3 existed, if any, between the BNP and the caretaker
4 government such that the government would be unable or
5 unwilling to control Siddiqui. See Ivanishvili v. U.S.
6 Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 342 (2d Cir. 2006).
7 Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the BIA abused its
8 discretion in finding that Al Mamun’s fear of Siddiqui was
9 unfounded.
10 While Al Mamun’s fear of persecution is based on his
11 political beliefs with the Jatiya Party (“JP”) in leading a
12 demonstration in 1992, he argues also that his cultural and
13 artistic activities in the United States are sufficient to
14 show he will be persecuted if returned to Bangladesh.
15 However, Al Mamun fails to explain how his activities in a
16 Bangladeshi theater group in the United States bears a
17 political dimension or how Siddiqu is likely to become aware
18 of Al Mamun’s activities with the theater group. Moreover,
19 Al Mamun fails to establish why Siddiqui would have
20 continuing interest in targeting him, since Al Mamun is no
21 longer active in the JP. Cf. Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426
22 F.3d 540, 545 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding that an applicant
4
1 seeking to establish persecution on account of political
2 opinion “must also show, through direct or circumstantial
3 evidence, that the persecutor’s motive to persecute arises
4 from the applicant’s political belief”). Accordingly, we
5 find no abuse of discretion by the BIA, where Al Mamun
6 failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum,
7 withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Abudu, 485 U.S.
8 at 104; Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
9 We find meritless Al Mamun’s other arguments, including
10 the argument that the BIA incorrectly applied a “heavy
11 burden” standard to his case.
12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
13 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
14 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
15 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
16 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
17 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
18 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
19 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
20
21 FOR THE COURT:
22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
23
24
25 By:____________________________
5
