The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
08-71422•Akm Shamsul Haque v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
08-71422Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMar 14, 2012
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AKM SHAMSUL HAQUE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71422
Agency No. A095-629-961
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 6, 2012**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Akm Shamsul Haque, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
FILED
MAR 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
08-71422 2
the agency’s factual findings and review de novo its legal conclusions. Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We grant the petition for review and
we remand.
Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s nexus determination
because Haque’s testimony established that he articulated his political opposition
to rival party members and that the subsequent attacks and extortion were
motivated, at least in part, on account of his political opinion. See Borja v. INS,
175 F.3d 732, 735-37 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). Because the agency erred in its
nexus determination, it did not fully consider Haque’s claim of past persecution
and whether Haque has a presumption of future persecution. See Recinos de Leon
v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 1185, 1191-92 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we grant the
petition as to Haque’s withholding of removal claim and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12,
16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.