Hasan v. Barr

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-60576
Summary Calendar

Kamrul Hasan,

Petitioner,

versus

William P. Barr, U. S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A216 590 675

Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Dennis and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Kamrul Hasan, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review
of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his appeal from
the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

*
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not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 8, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-60576 Document: 00515595198 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/08/2020

No. 19-60576
2
We have authority to review only the order of the BIA unless the
underlying decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) influenced the BIA’s
decision. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Here, because
the BIA approved of and relied on the IJ’s findings, we review both decisions.
See id.
In addition, we review an immigration court’s findings of fact for
substantial evidence. Id. Under this standard, this court may not reverse an
immigration court’s factual findings unless “the evidence was so compelling
that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Id. at 536-37.
First, Hasan argues that the BIA erred in dismissing his claims for
asylum and withholding of removal because he established past persecution
and a well-founded fear of future persecution by the Awami League due to
his membership in the Bangladesh National Party. He contends that his
refusal to join the Awami League would compromise his safety if he returned
to Bangladesh and discounts the IJ’s finding that Hasan could relocate safely
to another area of the country.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Hasan had failed
to show that the Bangladeshi government was unable or unwilling to protect
him. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 536. Although Hasan detailed how police
demanded a bribe from Hasan’s father before they would write a report
regarding the first attack against Hasan, he did not seek any type of police
assistance after the second attack by members of the Awami League. The
State Department reports submitted by Hasan do not necessarily bolster his
claim of governmental inaction because they showed a decrease in politically
motivated killings and explained that the Bangladeshi government had at
least enacted steps to remedy police corruption, even if it did not consistently
enforce the measures. In the absence of evidence that the Bangladeshi
government was unable or unwilling to protect him, Hasan cannot show that
Case: 19-60576 Document: 00515595198 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/08/2020

No. 19-60576
3
the harm he suffered by members of the Awami League rose to the level of
persecution. See Gonzalez-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 233 (5th Cir. 2019);
Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 109, 113 (5th Cir. 2006); Shehu v. Gonzales,
443 F.3d 435, 437 (5th Cir. 2006); Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 307 (5th
Cir. 2005). The BIA did not err in dismissing Hasan’s claim of asylum based
upon political persecution. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344-45. Because Hasan
has not established eligibility for asylum, he necessarily has not established
eligibility for withholding of removal. See Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590,
595 (5th Cir. 2006).
Second, Hasan argues that the BIA erred in dismissing his claim for
protection under the CAT. He claims that the record establishes that the
Awami League has targeted and threatened him and that the police are
unwilling to protect him from such intimidation and violence. Hasan avers
that some form of torture is more likely than not to occur if he returns to
Bangladesh.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Hasan had failed
to show that he was eligible for CAT protection. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344-
45. Hasan offers only a generalized assertion that he will more likely than not
be tortured if he returns to Bangladesh. Such speculation is insufficient to
reverse the BIA’s determination that Hasan is ineligible for protection under
the CAT. See Gonzalez-Veliz, 938 F.3d at 225. The BIA therefore did not
err in dismissing Hasan’s claim for CAT protection. See Zhang, 432 F.3d at
344-45.
The petition for review is DENIED.
Case: 19-60576 Document: 00515595198 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/08/2020