09-4267-ag
Hassan v. Holder
BIA
Morace, IJ
A070 658 323
A076 245 796
A076 245 797
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL
RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING
A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE
FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”).
A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 27th day of April, two thousand twelve.
PRESENT:
RALPH K. WINTER,
REENA RAGGI,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
Circuit Judges.
______________________________________
MOHAMMAD MONIR HASSAN, NAZIAT HASSAN,
NASRIN HASSAN,
Petitioners,
v. 09-4267-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
______________________________________
FOR PETITIONERS: Lawrence Spivak, Jackson
Heights, New York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Anthony P. Nicastro,
Senior Litigation Counsel;
Andrew N. O’Malley, Trial
Attorney, Civil Division, Office
of Immigration Litigation, U.S.
Department of Justice,
Washington D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Petitioners, Mohammad Monir Hassan (“Hassan”), his wife
Naziat Hassan, and his daughter Nasrin Hassan, natives and
citizens of Bangladesh, seek review of a September 14, 2009,
decision of the BIA affirming the December 4, 2007, decision
of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Philip L. Morace denying their
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mohammad
Monir Hassan, Nos. A070 658 323, A076 245 796 / 797 (B.I.A.
Sept. 14, 2009), aff’g Nos. A070 658 323, A076 245 796 / 797
(Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 4, 2007). We assume the parties’
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
of the case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
2
completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
2008). The applicable standards of review are well-
established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v.
Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). Because the
Hassans do not meaningfully challenge the agency’s denial of
CAT relief, we address only the agency’s denial of asylum
and withholding of removal. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales,
426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005).
With respect to the Hassans’ claim of past persecution,
substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
credibility determination. The agency reasonably relied on
several inconsistencies in the record that went to the heart
of the Hassans’ claims, see Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d
297, 307 (2d Cir. 2003), to support that determination, see
Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395, 402 (2d Cir. 2006).
Hassan provided testimony that was internally inconsistent,
inconsistent with his written applications, and inconsistent
with his wife’s testimony regarding when he was arrested and
detained by government authorities, when he was attacked and
stabbed, the chronology of when he was attacked and when his
cousin was killed, the reasons why his cousin was killed,
and whether and for how long he obtained medical treatment
following the alleged arrests and attacks. Given that
3
Hassan was not able to provide explanations for these
numerous inconsistencies, a reasonable fact-finder would not
be compelled to conclude that Hassan’s testimony was
credible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (providing that
“administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary”); Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d at 402 (emphasizing
that “even where an IJ relies on discrepancies or lacunae
that, if taken separately, concern matters ‘collateral or
ancillary to the claim,’ ... the cumulative effect may
nevertheless be deemed consequential by the fact-finder”
(quoting Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d at 308).
In addition, the agency did not err in determining that
the Hassans failed to establish eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal based on a threat of future harm.
Neither the letter from Hassan’s brother nor the background
materials identified any harm that Hassan would face upon
return to Bangladesh or indicated more generally that former
supporters of the Jatiyo Party, or individuals who sought
asylum in the United States, faced any harm by the
government or others in Bangladesh. Indeed, as the IJ
correctly recognized, the evidence regarding Hassan’s
brother shows at most that he was detained for two days and
4
mistreated for reasons inapplicable to Hassan, namely, the
brother’s support for a different opposition party and his
suspected smuggling of money from Russia into Bangladesh.
Thus, the agency did not err in determining that Hassan’s
fear of future harm was not objectively reasonable. See
Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 128-29 (2d Cir. 2005)
(holding that a fear is not objectively reasonable if it
lacks “solid support” in the record and is merely
“speculative at best”).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5