USCA11 Case: 20-12108 Date Filed: 08/11/2021 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-12108
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A208-536-732
JOHIRUL ISLAM,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(August 11, 2021)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, LAGOA and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-12108 Date Filed: 08/11/2021 Page: 2 of 5
Johirul Islam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of an
order affirming the denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of
removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and for relief under the United
Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b), 1231(b)(3). The Board of
Immigration Appeals agreed with the findings of the immigration judge that Islam
was not credible and, in the alternative, that he failed to establish that he suffered
past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution or that he would
be tortured if returned to Bangladesh. We deny Islam’s petition.
Islam argues that the Board failed to give reasoned consideration to his
arguments, but we disagree. The Board “considered the issues raised and
announced its decision in terms sufficient to enable [us, as] a reviewing court to
perceive that it . . . heard and thought and not merely reacted.” Bing Quan Lin v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 881 F.3d 860, 874 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Jeune v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 803 (11th Cir. 2016)). The Board declined to summarily
affirm the immigration judge’s decision, as requested by the Department of
Homeland Security, and addressed each of Islam’s challenges to the adverse
credibility ruling, to the denial of each form of asylum relief, and to the
immigration judge’s conduct during the removal proceedings. The Board
accurately recounted the record, adequately explained its findings, and gave
2
USCA11 Case: 20-12108 Date Filed: 08/11/2021 Page: 3 of 5
reasonable grounds for its decision. The Board found that the factors relevant to
credibility supported the immigration judge’s adverse finding, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); that Islam failed to prove he had been persecuted, had an
objectively reasonable fear of future persecution, or would be tortured if he
returned to Bangladesh; and that he had not been deprived of a full and fair
removal hearing. And the Board was not required to address every piece of
evidence Islam presented or case he cited. See Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d
1369, 1374 (11th Cir. 2006).
Islam argues that the immigration judge was hostile and biased, but the
record shows that Islam received a full and fair hearing. See Lapaix v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 605 F.3d 1138, 1143 (11th Cir. 2010). Islam complains about remarks
regarding his ethnicity and native language, but the immigration judge reasonably
inquired about Islam’s preferred language and instructed him to answer questions
precisely. And the immigration judge was entitled to ask Islam tough questions.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1) (“The immigration judge shall . . . interrogate,
examine, and cross-examine the alien and any witnesses.”). The immigration judge
suggested that Islam could testify in English because he worked in customer
service at a grocery store, but nonetheless protected his rights by providing him a
Bengali interpreter. Even so, Islam sometimes answered questions in English
before the translator finished speaking. Islam also complains about his attorney
3
USCA11 Case: 20-12108 Date Filed: 08/11/2021 Page: 4 of 5
being “chided,” but the immigration judge requested “help from both counsel” to
compile exhibits, expressed surprise that Islam’s attorney “only ke[pt] digital
files,” requested that she bring paper copies “for future hearings” in case the court
or the government did not have their copy, and became irritated only when the
attorney appeared unfamiliar with her exhibits. The immigration judge’s desire to
streamline the hearing did not violate Islam’s right to a “fair [hearing] in a fair
tribunal.” See Callahan v. Campbell, 427 F.3d 897, 928 (11th Cir. 2005).
Substantial evidence supports the finding that Islam was not credible, and
the Board identified specific and cogent reasons to support that finding. Chen v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1230–31 (11th Cir. 2006). Islam gave
nonresponsive answers and ignored the immigration judge’s repeated instructions
not to mumble. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Islam based his claim of
persecution on his membership in and responsibilities as the “publicity secretary”
for the Liberal Democratic Party, yet he attended its meetings only every “two or
three months” and described it vaguely as a “democratic party” and the posters that
he hung as bearing a “statement against the corruption and the bad governments of
the government.” Islam’s testimony lacked any details about why he joined the
Party or the agenda of any meeting he attended. Islam also gave inconsistent
accounts of his and his mother’s maltreatment by the opposition ruling party, the
Awami League. In his written application for immigration relief and on direct
4
USCA11 Case: 20-12108 Date Filed: 08/11/2021 Page: 5 of 5
examination, Islam stated that members of the League beat him in December 2013,
struck him in July 2014, made threatening phone calls, and then raided his
mother’s home in November 2014. But on cross-examination, Islam stated, for the
first time, that members of the League made threatening phone calls and
“occasionally” returned to his mother’s house after the raid. But Islam later
testified that his mother remained in Bangladesh without incident. Islam fails to
explain how this record would compel a reasonable fact finder to reverse the
adverse credibility finding against him and conclude that he established eligibility
for any form of immigration relief. See Chen, 463 F.3d at 1233.
We DENY Islam’s petition for review.
5