IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 98-60211
Summary Calendar
_______________
ABU KAMAL,
Petitioner,
VERSUS
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
_________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
(A70-848-392)
_________________________
June 14, 1999
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Abu Kamal petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA")
dismissing his petition for asylum and withholding of deportation. He argues that he is entitled to
asylum because he was persecuted while living in Bangladesh and that he has a well-founded fear that
he will be persecuted if he returns there. He avers that the BIA did not give meaningful consideration
to his evidence showing that his fear of return is well-founded.
Our review is limited to evidence included in the administrative record. See Miranda-Lores v.
INS, 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir. 1994). There is substantial evidence to support the BIA's determination
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published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.
that Kamal was not persecuted while in Bangladesh. See Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 583 (5th
Cir. 1996). Kamal was questioned by law enforcement personnel as part of an investigation of
President Ershad but never was subjected to physical mistreatment, nor was he arrested. While
Kamal claims he lost responsibilities at the bank, he suffered no diminished salary.
Kamal contends that the BIA's decision does not reflect that it gave meaningful consideration to
all the relevant evidence concerning his fear of future persecution. While "we do not require that the
BIA address evidentiary minutiae or write any lengthy exegesis," id. at 585, we do require that the
BIA's decision reflect that it gave meaningful consideration to all the relevant evidence regarding the
fear of future persecution, see id.
The BIA did not adopt the findings and conclusions of the immigration judge, so its own findings
are especially limited. The BIA did not, for example, address the murder of other banking officials,
the threats made on Kamal's life, or the inquiries into his whereabouts after he left Bangladesh. Nor
did the BIA address the information in the State Department reports concerning continuing human
rights abuses in Bangladesh.
The petition for review is GRANTED, and the order of the BIA is VACATED and REMANDED
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not, however, intimate what conclusion
the BIA should reach on remand.
2
Kamal v. INS
Combined Opinion