Mohammed Rifat Sarder v. U.S. Attorney General

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________

No. 19-13628
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________

Agency No. A215-949-387
MOHAMMED RIFAT SARDER,

Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.
________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(August 5, 2020)
Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Mohammed Sarder seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) decision adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of
Sarder’s application for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration
and Nationality Act (“INA”), and relief under the United Nations Convention
Case: 19-13628 Date Filed: 08/05/2020 Page: 1 of 9

2

Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(“CAT”). He argues that the IJ violated his due process rights by failing to grant
him more time to obtain corroborating documents, thereby denying him a
meaningful opportunity for a hearing. He also argues that the record compels a
finding that he is eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
Because Sarder failed to exhaust these claims before the BIA, we lack jurisdiction
to review them. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition.
I.
A. Immigration Court Proceedings
Sarder, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, entered the United States without
inspection in October 2018. After being served with a notice to appear and
admitting removability as an alien present in the United States without being
admitted or paroled, Sarder, proceeding pro se, filed an application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on political opinion.
At the merits hearing on his application, Sarder testified that he left
Bangladesh due to “political problems.” Specifically, he testified that because he
was active in the Liberal Democratic Party (“LDP”),
1
supporters of the opposing,
controlling political party—the Awami League—threatened him “many times,”

1
He did not have any corroborating proof of his membership but claimed that he was the
“sub-general secretary” in the LDP’s “Union no.1.”
Case: 19-13628 Date Filed: 08/05/2020 Page: 2 of 9

3

and beat him on two occasions. The beatings took place in October 2016 and
March 2018 at, or near, the grocery store he owned and each resulted in a multiday
hospital stay. The IJ asked if Sarder had any documents verifying his hospital
stays, and Sarder stated he depended on his elderly mother to obtain the documents
and she needed more time to obtain them. Accordingly, Sarder asked the IJ for an
additional six weeks to file supporting documents. The IJ asked if Sarder had any
letters from the locals who took him to the hospital following the beatings, and
Sarder stated that “they definitely will give the letter if you give me some time.”
The IJ responded that Sarder “already had a lot of time to try to obtain the
documents.”
2

Sarder explained that following the first beating, he complained to LDP
leadership, who advised him that the police were under Awami League control and
therefore would not assist him. Nevertheless, he went to the police station with an
LDP representative and reported the attack, as well as the identities of the
attackers. The police told him that they would “look into [the attack] later on, but
right now [they would not] be able to take any case against [the attackers].” Sarder
did not have a letter from the LDP representative who went to the police station
with him or a copy of his police report.

2
On January 15, 2019, when calendaring the merits hearing for April 4, 2019, the IJ
informed Sarder that if he had any police reports or medical records from his home country to
support his claim, Sarder needed to obtain copies of those documents for the merits hearing.
Case: 19-13628 Date Filed: 08/05/2020 Page: 3 of 9

4

Following the second attack by those same Awami League supporters,
Sarder closed his store and went to live with his aunt in Dhaka, which is
approximately four to eight hours away from his home village by bus. Sarder left
Bangladesh for the United States when a fellow LDP member from his home
village told him that the Awami League supporters who had twice attacked him
were looking for him and had learned he was in Dhaka. Sarder testified that he
believed that the six attackers were capable of finding him anywhere in
Bangladesh and would kill him if they found him. His immediate family, however,
continued to live in Dhaka with Sarder’s aunt, unharmed. Sarder did not obtain
any letters from his family in Dhaka confirming that he stayed with them.
The IJ issued an oral decision denying Sarder’s application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT relief. The IJ first found that Sarder had
“unquestionably not corroborated his claim.” Furthermore, the IJ found that Sarder
had not established an entitlement to relief on the merits. Specifically, Sarder did
not establish past persecution because he had not shown severe enough harm. The
IJ further found that the harm Sarder suffered was at the hands of private actors—
not Awami League officials, but rather mere supporters of the party. The IJ further
found that Sarder failed to show that he could not have relocated elsewhere in
Bangladesh to avoid harm. Similarly, the IJ also found that Sarder had not shown
a fear of future persecution, emphasizing that his family, including his father who
Case: 19-13628 Date Filed: 08/05/2020 Page: 4 of 9

5

was also an LDP member, continued to live safely in Dhaka, a city of nine million
people. Consequently, the IJ concluded that Sarder could not meet his burden of
proof for asylum, or the higher burden of showing he was eligible for withholding
of removal. Finally, the IJ found that Sarder was not eligible for CAT relief
because he had not shown that any public official or persons acting with the
acquiescence or consent of public officials would seek to harm him upon his return
to Bangladesh.
B. Proceedings Before the BIA
Sarder obtained counsel and filed a notice of appeal (“NOA”) to the BIA. In
the NOA, he summarily asserted that: (1) “[t]he denial of asylum and
withholding(s) is arbitrary, capricious and bad in law and facts”; (2) the IJ failed to
consider “the totality of the testimony” and that he met his burden of proof for
asylum; (3) “[t]he denial of Asylum raises substantial legal issues and factual
issues in dispute”; (4) the IJ’s denial of the petition was not supported by “any
legible and plausible reasons”; (5) “[t]he [IJ] erred by making speculative finding
facts based on assumption, speculation, and hunch despite [Sarder’s] consistent
detail testimony and ongoing fear of the Awami League . . . because of [Sarder’s]
political ideology”; (6) the IJ’s finding that Sarder did not have a well-founded fear
of future persecution is not supported by the record; (7) unspecified substantial
evidence supports his claim for asylum; (8) Sarder’s testimony established a well-
Case: 19-13628 Date Filed: 08/05/2020 Page: 5 of 9

6

founded fear of future persecution; (9) “[t]he [IJ] was biased and made material
and significant errors by denying the Asylum”; (10) the IJ’s determination that
Sarder did not meet his burden of proof was “merely a bias finding”; and (11)
“[t]he record does not support the [IJ’s] findings as these findings are totally
incorrect and without any legal force.” Sarder never filed a separate merits brief to
explain or expound upon his bare assertions.
The BIA issued an opinion adopting and affirming the IJ’s decision. It
reasoned that Sarder “ha[d] not made any specific arguments regarding the [IJ’s]
decision and ha[d] not meaningfully challenge[d ] any of the findings of fact or
conclusions of law underlying the denial of his applications for relief and
protection.” The BIA further reasoned that, based on the record, it saw “no reason
to disturb the [IJ]’s reasoned determination” that Sarder failed to provide
reasonably available corroborating evidence because had not demonstrated: (i) a
nexus to a protected ground; (ii) that authorities in Bangladesh would be unable or
unwilling to protect him; (iii) that he could not reasonably relocate within
Bangladesh; or (iv) that he could otherwise show his eligibility for asylum,
withholding of removal, or CAT protection. Finally, the BIA concluded that
Sarder’s due process rights were not violated and that there was nothing in the
record that demonstrated the IJ was biased against him. Accordingly, the BIA
dismissed Sarder’s appeal. Sarder, through counsel, timely appealed to this Court.
Case: 19-13628 Date Filed: 08/05/2020 Page: 6 of 9

7

II.
As an initial matter, we must determine whether we have subject matter
jurisdiction, which we review de novo. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463
F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). “We lack jurisdiction to consider a claim raised
in a petition for review unless the petitioner has exhausted his administrative
remedies with respect thereto.” Id.; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (“A court may
review a final order of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all
administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.” (emphasis added)). “A
petitioner has not exhausted a claim unless he has both raised the ‘core issue’
before the BIA, and also set out any discrete arguments he relies on in support of
that claim.” Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 800 (11th Cir. 2016) (internal
citations omitted). “‘Unadorned, conclusory statements do not satisfy this
requirement,’ and the petitioner must do more than make a passing reference to the
issue.” Id. (quoting Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1297 (11th Cir.
2015)). In other words, although a petitioner is not required to “‘use precise legal
terminology’ or provide well-developed arguments” to exhaust his claim before the
BIA, the petitioner must “provide information sufficient to enable the BIA to
review and correct any errors below.” Id. (quoting Indrawati, 779 F.3d at 1297).
“These requirements further the purpose of exhaustion: to give the agency a ‘full
opportunity’ to consider the petitioner’s claim and to compile a record that will be
Case: 19-13628 Date Filed: 08/05/2020 Page: 7 of 9

8

adequate for future judicial review.” Id. (quoting Amaya–Artunduaga, 463 F.3d at
1250).
Here, Sarder argues that the IJ violated his due process rights by not
providing him with an opportunity to obtain reasonably available corroborating
documentation. But he failed to exhaust this claim before the BIA as he did not
reference the issue of corroborating documents or the IJ’s denial of additional time
to obtain them. Nor did he present any argument to the BIA that would have fairly
raised the core issue of due process. Rather, Sarder provided only conclusory
statements that the IJ was biased against him and improperly denied his claims.
See id. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review this claim.
Similarly, with regard to the denial of his application for asylum,
withholding of removal and CAT relief, before the BIA, Sarder merely made
conclusory assertions that the record supported his asylum claim and generally
quarreled with the denial of relief. But, as noted by the BIA, Sarder failed to
“meaningfully challenge[] the findings of fact or conclusions of law underlying the
IJ’s denial of his application.” Thus, Sarder’s “unadorned, conclusory” allegations
to the BIA were insufficient to preserve the discrete issues he raises before us on
appeal concerning the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and CAT relief. Jeune, 810 F.3d at 800. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to
review these claims.
Case: 19-13628 Date Filed: 08/05/2020 Page: 8 of 9

9

PETITION DISMISSED.
Case: 19-13628 Date Filed: 08/05/2020 Page: 9 of 9