Summary Calendar SYED ABUL HOSSAIN, SHAHANAZ KAZAL BEGUM v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
** Because Begum’s claim is derivative of Hossain’s, we
shall refer to the petitioners as Hossain.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 28, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-60139
Summary Calendar
SYED ABUL HOSSAIN, SHAHANAZ KAZAL BEGUM
Petitioners
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Respondent
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA Nos. A73 646 990 & A73 646 991
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Syed Hossain and his wife, Shahanaz Begum,** petition for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
denying their motion to reopen based on changed circumstances.
Hossain contends that because the October 1991 elections returned
the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) to power the BIA should have

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-60139
-2-
reopened the proceedings in which his application for asylum and
withholding of deportation was denied. Hossain’s asylum claim
asserted that he had been persecuted by BNP members due to his
membership in the Jatiyo Party. He argues that in affirming the
denial of his original application the BIA relied solely on the
prior change in circumstances in Bangladesh during which the
Awami Party gained control. He asserts that the BIA erred by
requiring him to conclusively establish his eligibility for
asylum.
We hold that it was not improper for the BIA to weigh the
evidence submitted by Hossain in support of his motion to reopen
and that it did not abuse its discretion by denying that motion.
See De Morales v. INS, 116 F.3d 145, 147 (5th Cir. 1997); Faddah
v. INS, 553 F.2d 491, 494-95 (5th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the
petition for review is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --