Shahjahan Ahmed v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAHJAHAN AHMED,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72919
Agency No. A206-910-356
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 10, 2022**
Portland, Oregon
Before: SCHROEDER and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON,*** District
Judge.
Shahjahan Ahmed, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review
of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of
* 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 John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the
Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUN 16 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications 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 for review.
Ahmed does not address his CAT claim in his brief, and thus he has waived
any challenge to the denial of CAT protection. See, e.g., Velasquez-Gaspar v.
Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2020) (finding that the petitioner “waived any
argument as to her CAT claim by failing to ‘specifically and distinctly’ discuss the
matter in her opening brief” (quoting Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069,
1072 (9th Cir. 2005))). And with regard to his asylum and withholding of removal
claims, Ahmed challenges the agency’s adverse credibility determination but does
not address, and thus has waived any challenge to, the agency’s dispositive
alternative holding that even if Ahmed were credible, he failed to establish that any
persecution he suffered “was or would be committed by the government, or by
forces that the government was unable or unwilling to control.” Rodriguez Tornes
v. Garland, 993 F.3d 743, 751 (9th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, we deny the petition
for review without addressing Ahmed’s arguments regarding credibility. See, e.g.,
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (“As a general rule courts
and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is
unnecessary to the results they reach.”); Singh v. Barr, 935 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir.
2019) (refusing to remand when “neither the result nor the BIA’s basic reasoning

-- 2 of 3 --

3
would change”).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --