NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAKHAWAT HOSSAIN, No. 16-73734
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-159-768
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Shakhawat Hossain, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We review de
novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v.
Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusions that the threats and
harassment Hossain suffered in Bangladesh did not rise to the level of persecution,
see Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2005) (threats did not
compel finding of past persecution), and that Hossain failed to establish it is more
likely than not that he would be persecuted on account of his political opinion, see
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future
persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Hossain’s withholding of removal claim
fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Hossain’s CAT
claim because he failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be
tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government in Bangladesh. See Aden
v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject Hossain’s contentions that the BIA ignored evidence, or violated
his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (error
required to prevail on due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 16-73734