Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 04-2383
MOHAMMED S. ALAM,
Petitioner,
v.
ALBERTO R. GONZÁLES, ATTORNEY GENERAL*,
Respondent.
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF
THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
Stahl, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
Mohammed S. Alam on brief pro se.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Douglas E.
Ginsburg, Senior Litigation Counsel and Lyle D. Jentzer, Trial
Attorney on brief for respondent.
September 15, 2005
*
Alberto Gonzáles was sworn in as United States Attorney
General on February 3, 2005. We have therefore substituted
Attorney General Gonzáles for John Ashcroft as the respondent. See
Fed. R. Civ. 25(d)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
Per Curiam. Mohammed S. Alam, a native and citizen of
Bangladesh, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial by an Immigration
Judge (IJ) of his application for political asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief pursuant to the United Nations Convention
Against Torture ("CAT"). The petition for review is denied.
As an initial matter, we find no abuse of discretion in
the BIA's insistence upon compliance with the requirements of
Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), aff'd 857 F.2d 10
(1st Cir. 1988), as a precondition to Alam's pursuit of his claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel. Betouche v. Ashcroft, 357
F.3d 147, 149 n.2 (1st Cir. 2004) (BIA has discretion to insist on
compliance with Lozada prerequisites). Alam's failure to comply
with any of the three Lozada prerequisites hardly constitutes a
strong basis to argue otherwise. And, we find neither abuse of
discretion nor error of law in the BIA's further conclusion that
Alam had failed to establish prejudice from his counsel's claimed
deficiencies.
In reviewing a BIA denial of asylum, we determine whether
the decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record,
upholding the BIA's fact-based determination of an alien's
entitlement to asylum unless "'any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude to the contrary.'" Bocova v. Gonzales, 412
F.3d 257, 262 (1st Cir. 2005) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).
-2-
Upon our review of the record under this standard, we find easily
sustainable the BIA's determination that the evidence does not
establish Alam's eligibility for political asylum. In brief, as
noted by the BIA, Alam points to a single assault in 1988 by
members of a party opposed to the ruling party (of which Alam was
a member) for which Alam required some (not further described)
medical attention. Although Alam left Bangladesh the following
year, he has voluntarily returned to Bangladesh since then, if only
briefly, but without incident. Alam's additional evidence of
persecution of family members was, as recited by the BIA, very
summary.
Alam makes no further particularized claim with respect
to his requests for withholding of removal and relief under the
CAT. In any event, as Alam's asylum claim fails, so does the
withholding claim, as it engenders an even more stringent burden of
proof. See Settenda v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 89, 93-94 (1st Cir.
2004). Substantial evidence supports the denial of the CAT claim.
Alam's request for oral argument is denied.
The petition for review is denied.
-3-