Filed: Jan. 11, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 08-2606-ag Bhuiyan v. Holder BIA Bukszpan, IJ A078 517 743 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 (WI
Summary: 08-2606-ag Bhuiyan v. Holder BIA Bukszpan, IJ A078 517 743 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 (WIT..
More
08-2606-ag
Bhuiyan v. Holder
BIA
Bukszpan, IJ
A078 517 743
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 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
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 January, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 MAINNUDDIN BHUIYAN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 08-2606-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Indra Pal, Brooklyn, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Barry J. Pettinato,
27 Assistant Director; Jennifer R.
28 Khouri, Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Mainnuddin Bhuiyan, a native and citizen of Bangladesh,
6 seeks review of a May 2, 2008 order of the BIA, affirming
7 the March 12, 2007 decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”),
8 dening his application for withholding of removal and relief
9 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
10 Mainnuddin Bhuiyan, No. A078 517 743 (B.I.A. May 2, 2008),
11 aff’g No. A078 517 743 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 12, 2007).
12 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
13 and procedural history in this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both
15 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
16 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
17 2008). The applicable standards of review are well-
18 established. Shu Wen Sun v. BIA,
510 F.3d 377, 379 (2d Cir.
19 2007); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey,
529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.
20 2008).
21 Although the agency erred in its failure to expressly
22 determine whether Bhuiyan established past persecution, see
2
1 Beskovic v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 223, 227 (2d Cir. 2006), we
2 find that the agency’s reasonable finding that Bhuiyan can
3 avoid future persecution by relocating within Bangladesh
4 obviates the need for remand. See Steevenez v. Gonzales,
5
476 F.3d 114, 117-118 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Xiao Ji Chen
6 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
471 F.3d 315, 339 (2d Cir. 2006)
7 (holding that remand is futile “when the reviewing court can
8 ‘confidently predict’ that the agency would reach the same
9 decision absent the errors that were made” (quoting Cao He
10 Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
428 F.3d 391, 395 (2d Cir.
11 2005)). Even where an applicant for withholding of removal
12 has established past persecution, the presumption of future
13 persecution may be rebutted by a finding that “[t]he
14 applicant could avoid a future threat to his or her life or
15 freedom by relocating to another part of the proposed
16 country of removal and, under the circumstances, it would be
17 reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.” 8 C.F.R.
18 § 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B).
19 The BIA’s determination that Bhuiyan can avoid future
20 threat to his life by relocating to another part of
21 Bangladesh is amply supported by the record. Bhuiyan
22 testified that he moved to an area of Bangladesh called
3
1 Sylhet because it was “safe for [him] to stay out of [his
2 hometown],” and lived there for four years without incident.
3 Bhuiyan also testified that he “was doing fine” in Sylhet,
4 and only left because the business he started there was not
5 profitable. In short, even if Bhuiyan established past
6 persecution, the presumption of future persecution was
7 adequately rebutted by the BIA’s reasonable finding that
8 Bhuiyan could relocate within Bangladesh to avoid
9 persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B); see also
10 Kambolli v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 454, 457 (2d Cir. 2006)
11 (upholding an IJ’s denial of relief that was supported in
12 part by a finding that the alien “successfully evaded
13 trouble by relocating within [his country of origin]”).
14 Accordingly, we deny Bhuiyan’s petition for review of his
15 application for withholding of removal.
16 Because Bhuiyan fails to sufficiently challenge the
17 agency’s denial of his CAT claim, we deem any such claim
18 waived. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales,
426 F.3d 540, 545
19 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005).
20 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
21 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
22 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
23 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
4
1 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
2 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
3 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
4 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
7
8
9 By:___________________________
5
