AMENUL HOQUE; ROJINA AKTER, AKA Rojina Hoque, AKA Misess Rojina Akter v. Attorney General of the United States

IMG-124 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-1419
___________
AMENUL HOQUE;
ROJINA AKTER,
AKA Rojina Hoque,
AKA Misess Rojina Akter,
Petitioners
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
____________________________________
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Agency Nos. A098-496-268/269)
Immigration Judge: Honorable Henry S. Dogin
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 17, 2010
Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: March 19, 2010 )
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM

-- 1 of 7 --

2
Amenul Hoque (the lead respondent) and his wife, Rojina Akter (the derivative
respondent), petition for review of the removal order issued by the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of asylum and other relief. For the reasons set forth
below, we will deny the petition.
Hoque and Akter are natives and citizens of Bangladesh who entered the United
States on February 6, 2004, on a B-2 visa that expired on August 4, 2005. In 2006, the
Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued a notice to appear charging that Hoque
and Akter were removable because they overstayed their visas. Through counsel, they
conceded the charges of removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
At the removal hearing held in February 2007, Hoque testified that he became an
active member of, and worker for, the Jatiya Party in 1998. His elder brother, Abdul, was
a longstanding member of the Bangladesh National Party (“BNP”). Both parties opposed
the Awami League in the late 1990's and early 2000's. Hoque testified that, in 1999, the
Awami League-led government falsely accused Abdul of wrongdoing, arrested him, and
held him in jail for three months. Hoque and his family reported his brother’s incident to
the police, who did nothing. Hoque also testified that Awami League members had been
bothering him for a long time. In the six to seven months leading up to his departure
from Bangladesh in 2001, Awami League members came to Hoque’s house repeatedly,

-- 2 of 7 --

In the argument section of his brief, Hoque refers for the first time to “evidence of1
the attempted shooting of the Petitioner,” directing our attention to page 192 of the
Administrative Record. (Pet’r Br. at 14.) Hoque also argued that he had “testified that he
was beaten at the hands of Awami League members, and they mistreated, mentally
tortured and threatened him.” (Id. at 19.) Having reviewed the entire the administrative
record, we find absolutely no evidentiary support for Hoque’s assertions that he was the
target of an attempted shooting, or that he was beaten, mistreated or mentally tortured by
members of the Awami League. Hoque’s testimony attests only to verbal threats made to
him during a six to seven month period in 2000 and early 2001, which he said he had
reported to the Jatiya Party. (J.A. at 140, 146, & 155-56.) He denied being arrested. (Id.
at 153.) Pages 192 through 194 of the administrative record are the State Department’s
travel advisory for Bangladesh dated January 29, 2007, alerting travelers to the Caretaker
Government’s declaration of a state of emergency. The advisory makes no mention of an
attempted shooting involving Hoque.
3
threatening that he would suffer the same fate as Abdul if he did not join them. He
reported the threats to the members of the Jatiya Party and to police in December 2000.1
In April 2001, in order to avoid problems with the Awami League, Hoque left his
wife and two children behind in Bangladesh and headed for Botswana on a residence and
work permit. His wife and children joined him about five months later. Hoque managed
a clothing business in Botswana, which he operated until 2004. He decided to leave
Botswana after the store was repeatedly vandalized. He said that he did not apply for
asylum while he was in Botswana because he had permission to live there. In February
2004, Hoque and his family left on B-2 visas for the United States. He did not apply for
asylum right away because he did not know how to read or write English and did not
know that he could apply for asylum.

-- 3 of 7 --

Relying on the 2006 State Department Country Report on Bangladesh, the IJ also2
found that Hoque failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because the
Awami League was no longer in power. The BIA, however, did not rely on a change in
country conditions in determining that Hoque failed to show a well-founded fear of future
persecution.
4
Hoque returned once to Bangladesh to visit his ailing mother during Ramadan in
2002 (when he was living in Botswana). His mother had moved to Noakhali, where
Hoque was not known. He experienced no problems during his month-long stay in
Noakhali because he was not involved in political activity there. He feared that, if he
returned, he would be killed based on current news reports of instability in Bangladesh.
The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the CAT. The IJ questioned the sufficiency of Hoque’s testimony concerning the
reasons for Abdul’s imprisonment, noted the lack of reasonably accessible corroborating
evidence concerning the reasons for Abdul’s imprisonment, and observed that a letter
from the Jatiya Party submitted by Hoque in support of his claim of verbal threats failed
to mention his complaint of such threats to them. The IJ ultimately concluded, however,
that Hoque failed to demonstrate “past persecution”on account of his political opinion,
finding that the worst treatment that Hoque received was “a threat or two . . . . [a]nd when
he returned he wasn’t harmed.” (J.A. at 86.) The IJ also determined that Hoque failed to
demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution because his brother and mother
lived in Bangladesh and were unharmed and because Hoque could safely relocate to his
family’s home in Noakhali.2

-- 4 of 7 --

Because our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, and because the BIA3
assumed Hoque’s credibility, we need not address Hoque’s argument in his brief that the
IJ erred in making an adverse credibility determination.
5
The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed Hoque’s appeal. Assuming
the credibility of Hoque’s testimony, the BIA held that evidence of verbal threats by
members of the Awami League did not amount to “past persecution” for asylum purposes.
The BIA also held that Hoque failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution,
noting that his return to a different area of Bangladesh without incident undermined his
claim of a subjective fear of persecution in the entire country and supported the
conclusion that relocation to another area was not unreasonable. The BIA agreed with the
IJ that Hoque could not show an objective fear of future persecution because his mother
and elder brother remained in Bangladesh without harm and that Hoque did not otherwise
demonstrate sufficient evidence to establish a well-founded fear. The BIA thus
determined that Hoque failed to satisfy the burden of proof required for asylum and the
higher standard of proof required for withholding of removal. The BIA also determined
that Hoque had not shown a clear probability of torture at the instigation of, or with the
consent or acquiescence of, government officials. This timely petition for review
followed.
We have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
See Briseno-Flores v. Att’y Gen., 492 F.3d 226, 228 (3d Cir. 2007). Where, as here, the
BIA issues a decision on the merits, we review the BIA’s, not the IJ’s decision. See Sioe3

-- 5 of 7 --

6
Tjen Wong v. Att’y Gen., 539 F.3d 225, 230 (3d Cir. 2008) (“[W]here the BIA renders its
own decision and does not merely adopt the opinion of the IJ, we review the BIA’s
decision, not that of the IJ.”) (emphasis added). The BIA reviews the IJ’s factual
determinations only to determine whether they are clearly erroneous. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(d)(3)(i). We must uphold the BIA’s findings, including its determination
whether an alien was subject to persecution or has a well-founded fear of persecution, if
they are “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
considered as a whole.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (quotation
omitted). Indeed, we may not reject these findings “unless any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also
Kibinda v. Att’y Gen., 477 F.3d 113, 119 (3d Cir. 2007).
Hoque asserts that verbal threats are sufficient to show that he was persecuted. We
disagree. “[P]ersecution connotes extreme behavior, including threats to life,
confinement, torture, and economic restrictions so severe that they constitute a threat to
life or freedom.” Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 214, 217 (3d Cir. 2003) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Persecution “does not include all treatment that our society
regards as unfair, unjust, or even unlawful or unconstitutional.” Id. Here, the verbal
threats that Hoque received, although troubling, do not amount to “persecution” under the
INA. Abdelmalek v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 19, 23 (1st Cir. 2008); Djonda v. Att'y Gen., 514
F.3d 1168, 1174 (11th Cir. 2008). Thus, we conclude that substantial evidence supports

-- 6 of 7 --

The BIA apparently viewed the evidence of the 1999 arrest and imprisonment of4
Hoque’s brother, Abdul, as insufficient to establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution. (See J.A. at 3.) We agree and note that there is no record evidence that the
perpetrators took any action against Abdul after his imprisonment in 1999.
7
the BIA’s holding that Hoque failed to establish past persecution. Substantial evidence
also supports the BIA’s determination that Hoque failed to demonstrate a well-founded
fear of future harm. Hoque was safe in Noakhali for the month that he stayed there and
there is no record evidence that his brother, Abdul, who lived in Noakhali, experienced
any politically motivated harm there or elsewhere in Bangladesh for the time period from
1999 through 2007. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii).4
Because Hoque failed to satisfy the lower burden of proof required for asylum, he
is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480
U.S. 421, 430-32 (1987). Moreover, the BIA determined that Hoque did not meet his
burden of establishing that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured upon his
return to Bangladesh, 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16, 1208.18, and we conclude that the record does
not compel a different conclusion.
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for review.

-- 7 of 7 --