Mohammed Motiur Rahman v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAMMED MOTIUR RAHMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70747
Agency No. A202-098-177
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 1, 2022**
Before: FRIEDLAND, SANCHEZ, and H. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Mohammed Motiur Rahman, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 8 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-70747
(“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse
credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d
1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
To overturn an adverse credibility determination, we must find that the
evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion but compels it. Ming Dai v.
Garland, 9 F.4th 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 2021). The substantial evidence supporting
the agency’s determination in this case includes the inconsistencies between
Rahman’s testimony and the documents he submitted concerning his role in his
political party. In the absence of credible testimony, Rahman’s claims for asylum
and withholding of removal fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th
Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Rahman’s claim
for CAT protection because it was based on the same evidence that the agency
found not credible, and Rahman does not point to other evidence in the record that
compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Bangladesh. See
Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-70747
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --