Robiul Islam v. U.S. Attorney General

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-12105
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
ROBIUL ISLAM,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
____________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A213-165-923
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12105 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 03/07/2024 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-12105
Before WILLIAM PRYOR , Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and ANDERSON,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Robiul Islam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions
for review of an order affirming the denial of his applications 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 Treat-
ment or Punishment. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b), 1231(b)(3). The Board of
Immigration Appeals agreed with the immigration judge that Islam
was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal because,
even assuming he was credible, he failed to prove that he suffered
past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution.
The Board also agreed that Islam was not tortured and was unlikely
to be tortured if he returned to Bangladesh. We deny the petition.
Because the Board affirmed the decision of the immigration
judge, we review both their decisions. Jathursan v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
17 F.4th 1365, 1372 (11th Cir. 2021). Our review of the decision is
“limited” by “the highly deferential substantial evidence test,” un-
der 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). Un-
der the substantial evidence test, we view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the decision of the immigration judge and draw
USCA11 Case: 23-12105 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 03/07/2024 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

23-12105 Opinion of the Court 3
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 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).
Substantial evidence supports the finding that Islam did not
suffer past persecution. Islam testified that in January 2017, he
joined the Liberal Democratic Party and participated by distrib-
uting food, helping students in need, attending meetings, and vot-
ing for the party. Islam testified that in July 2018, five or six mem-
bers of the Awami League political party attacked him in the street,
but his attackers fled after a bystander heard him scream. Islam tes-
tified that he stayed in the hospital for three days due to scrapes on
his legs and a lump on his head, and a one-page medical document
recorded bleeding and swelling in unspecified parts of his body and
treatment consisting of antiseptic lotion, antibiotics, and medica-
tion for inflammation and excess stomach acid. Although Islam tes-
tified that his attackers threatened to kill him if he did not leave his
political party, he had no negative encounters with them over the
next six months. Islam also testified that in December 2018, mem-
bers of the Awami League attacked a Liberal Democratic Party
rally that he and over 100 other people were attending, which re-
sulted in him being trampled and fainting after being hit on the
head with a hockey stick. He testified that he stayed in the hospital
for seven days, and a one-page medical document recorded that he
received an antibiotic for his conditions of bruises and swelling.
USCA11 Case: 23-12105 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 03/07/2024 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-12105
Considered cumulatively, these two isolated and brief inci-
dents do not amount to persecution. “[P]ersecution is an extreme
concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society
regards as offensive.” Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338, 1355 (11th
Cir. 2000). Even verbal threats “in conjunction with [a] minor beat-
ing” do not compel a finding that an alien has suffered persecution.
Djonda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 514 F.3d 1168, 1174 (11th Cir. 2008) (hold-
ing that no persecution occurred when officers beat an alien with a
belt and kicked him, which caused lacerations and bruising that re-
quired medical treatment); see also Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 992
F.3d 1283, 1291 (11th Cir. 2021) (insufficient evidence of past per-
secution when an alien was beaten by two plain-clothes officers
that rendered him briefly unconscious and required his mother to
stitch closed a cut on his head, was threatened with imprisonment
and torture by Cuban officials and by the head of a group of Cuban
government informants, and fired from three jobs as a waiter after
government officials threatened the business owners).
Islam challenges the alternative determination by the immi-
gration judge that he was not credible, but because the Board did
not adopt the immigration judge’s alternative adverse-credibility
finding and instead assumed that Islam was credible, he was not
prejudiced by the immigration judge’s adverse-credibility determi-
nation. See Ibrahim v. I.N.S., 821 F.2d 1547, 1550 (11th Cir. 1987).
Substantial evidence also supports the finding that Islam did
not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because in-
ternal relocation in Bangladesh was reasonable. See 8 C.F.R.
USCA11 Case: 23-12105 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 03/07/2024 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

23-12105 Opinion of the Court 5
§ 1208.13(b)(2)(ii) (“An applicant does not have a well-founded fear
of persecution if the applicant could avoid persecution by relocat-
ing to another part of the applicant’s country of nationality . . . .”);
id. § 1208.16(b)(2), (3). “When the applicant does not establish past
persecution, he ‘bear[s] the burden of establishing that it would not
be reasonable for him . . . to relocate, unless the persecutor is a
government or is government-sponsored.’” Farah v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
12 F.4th 1312, 1330 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(b)(3)(i)) (alterations in original). Islam failed to establish
either past persecution on the basis of being a member of the Lib-
eral Democratic Party or that the Awami League is a government
or government-sponsored actor, so we “presume that internal re-
location would be reasonable, unless [he] establishes otherwise by
a preponderance of the evidence.” Id.; see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b). Is-
lam acknowledged that other areas of the country contain more
members of his political party, he held no leadership position
within his party, and during his two years of low-level membership
he suffered only one targeted attack by a handful of individuals, all
reasonably suggesting that the Awami League would not search
the country for him if he returned. For these reasons, the record
does not compel a finding that Islam has a well-founded fear of fu-
ture persecution. And his failure to establish that he is eligible for
asylum necessarily defeats his argument that he is eligible for relief
under the Convention. See Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 992 F.3d
1283, 1290 n.2 (11th Cir. 2021).
We DENY the petition for review.
USCA11 Case: 23-12105 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 03/07/2024 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --