Motiur Rahman v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOTIUR RAHMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72028
Agency No. A202-098-781
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 12, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and EZRA,*** District
Judge.
Petitioner Motiur Rahman petitions for review of a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the order of an Immigration Judge denying
* 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).
*** The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of
Hawaii, sitting by designation.
FILED
APR 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252,
and we deny the petition.
“We review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal and CAT claims for
substantial evidence.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.
2019). Likewise, “[w]e review factual findings, including adverse credibility
determinations, for substantial evidence.” Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 826 (9th
Cir. 2021) (quoting Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014)). “[T]here
is no presumption that an applicant for relief is credible, and the [Immigration Judge]
is authorized to base an adverse credibility determination on ‘the totality of the
circumstances’ and ‘all relevant factors.’” Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149,
1152–53 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)).
Numerous unexplained inconsistencies exist in Petitioner’s application and
testimony. His testimony also evidenced a repeated inability to answer basic
questions. Petitioner claimed to be a member and leader of the Bangladesh National
Party (BNP) for a decade. Despite this, he was unable to correctly explain the
meaning of “BNP” or provide details about what was discussed during BNP
meetings or the differences between the BNP and its rival political party. See Bingxu
Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 966 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[T]he BIA appropriately
considered Jin’s ‘lack of detail’ about his Christian beliefs as one factor in evaluating

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Jin’s credibility[.]”). Petitioner was also inconsistent about filing a police report
following an alleged bombing of a BNP meeting. In his application, he claimed that
“[t]he police took [his] report but did not follow up on the matter.” But then he
testified that the police never took his report. Petitioner changed his story once
again, testifying that he never “tr[ied] to file a police report.” When asked to explain
this discrepancy, Petitioner testified that he “went to the police station but they were
angry and they asked him to leave.” Petitioner was also inconsistent about his
motivation to join the BNP. In his application, he claimed to have joined because
his “uncle was a leader of the organization in [his] village” and he agreed with the
party’s principles. But when testifying, he initially gave a different reason multiple
times as the “only reason” he joined the BNP, until the immigration judge confronted
him with the discrepancy. Substantial evidence thus supports the immigration
judge’s adverse credibility determination. See Lalayan, 4 F.4th at 826. And without
Petitioner’s testimony, the remaining evidence in the record does not compel the
conclusion that the agency erred in denying his asylum application. See Duran-
Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1028.
To qualify for withholding of removal, Petitioner must satisfy a more stringent
standard and demonstrate that it is “more likely than not” he would be persecuted on
account of a protected ground if returned to Bangladesh. 8 C.F. R. § 1208.16(b)(2).
Because he has not established eligibility for asylum, “he necessarily fails to satisfy

-- 3 of 4 --

4
the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.” Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390
F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir. 2004).
Finally, because Petitioner failed to address the denial of his claim for CAT
protection in his opening brief on appeal, it is waived. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,
94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --