Filed: Jul. 03, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 00-60747 Summary Calendar _ MUHAMMAD SHAKIL LATIF; SAYEEDA LATIF, Petitioners, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent. _ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A72 377 128) _ June 29, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Muhammad Shakil Latif and his wife, Sayeeda Latif, petition for review of a September 2000 order by the Board of Immigration Appeal
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 00-60747 Summary Calendar _ MUHAMMAD SHAKIL LATIF; SAYEEDA LATIF, Petitioners, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent. _ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A72 377 128) _ June 29, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Muhammad Shakil Latif and his wife, Sayeeda Latif, petition for review of a September 2000 order by the Board of Immigration Appeals..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 00-60747
Summary Calendar
____________________
MUHAMMAD SHAKIL LATIF; SAYEEDA LATIF,
Petitioners,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U. S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________
Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(A72 377 128)
____________________________________________________________
June 29, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Muhammad Shakil Latif and his wife, Sayeeda Latif, petition
for review of a September 2000 order by the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA). That order sustained the INS’ appeal of the
November 1994 decision by the Immigration Judge (IJ) that they were
entitled to asylum. The BIA found: the Latifs established that
they were persecuted in the past in Bangladesh on account of their
political opinion, and thus were entitled to a presumption that
they had a well-founded fear of being persecuted if forced to
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
return to that country; but, the presumption was rebutted by
evidence that, since the time the persecution occurred, conditions
in Bangladesh had changed to such an extent that the Latifs no
longer had a well founded fear of persecution. Therefore, the BIA
denied asylum and withholding of deportation. (Petitioners were,
however, granted voluntary departure in lieu of deportation.)
The Latifs contend: they were denied due process by the BIA’s
delay in rendering a decision and by its refusal to allow rebuttal
evidence; and the BIA’s decision is not supported by substantial
evidence.
The Latifs claimed they were persecuted in Bangladesh because
of their affiliation with the Awami League, and because of their
opposition to the Bangladesh National Party (BNP), which then
controlled the government. The BIA took administrative notice of
Department of State country reports and a congressional committee
report reflecting that, since the Latifs left Bangladesh: the BNP
was no longer in power; the Latifs’ party, the Awami League, has
been in power since June 1996; and the Latifs’ relative is Prime
Minister of Bangladesh.
Contrary to the Latifs’ contention, the BIA was entitled to
take administrative notice of such changed conditions. See Rivera-
Cruz v. INS,
948 F.2d 962, 966-67 (5th Cir. 1991) (BIA did not
abuse its “broad discretion” in taking administrative notice of
change of government).
2
We reject the Latifs’ contention that they were denied due
process by the BIA’s refusal to allow evidence in rebuttal of the
administratively-noticed facts. “The motion to reopen provides
asylum applicants ... with an opportunity to be heard regarding
facts officially noticed and to present contrary evidence.”
Id. at
968. “Applicants may then appeal the [BIA]’s denial of a motion to
reopen to the court of appeals.”
Id. Although the Latifs filed a
motion to reopen, the record does not contain a ruling (the INS’
brief states the motion was denied on 26 February 2001; the Latifs
did not file a reply brief countering that statement). In any
event, the Latifs’ petition for review encompasses only the BIA’s
September 2000 decision sustaining the INS’ appeal.
We also reject the Latifs’ contention that the BIA’s nearly
six-year delay in rendering its decision denied them due process.
The Latifs’ due process claim is based on their contention that the
INS’ appeal was frivolous, because the IJ found they had shown past
persecution and were entitled to asylum. But, as noted, a showing
of past persecution merely creates a rebuttable presumption that
the asylum applicant has a well-founded fear of future persecution.
See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1); Aguirre-Cervantes v. INS,
242 F.3d
1169, 1179 (9th Cir. 2001). As also noted, the presumption may be
rebutted by evidence of a change in conditions in the country that
makes such a fear of future persecution no longer well-founded.
See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i)(A);
Aguirre-Cervantes, 242 F.3d at
3
1179. Needless to say, inasmuch as the BIA sustained the INS’
appeal and found that the Latifs’ presumed fear of persecution was
no longer well-founded because of changed conditions in Bangladesh,
the INS’ appeal was not frivolous.
For the foregoing reasons, the Latifs’ petition for review is
DENIED.
4