Case ID: f-appx_422/html/0633-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mohammad Humayun KABIR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70215.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 18, 2011.
    Ebby S. Bakhtiar, Esquire, Livingston, Bakhtiar, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Kristin Edison, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mohammad Humayun Kabir, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Gonzalez-Hemandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that, even if Kabir was persecuted on account of a protected ground, the government rebutted the presumption of a clear probability of future persecution by establishing changed circumstances in Bangladesh. See Gonzalez-Hemandez, 336 F.3d at 999-1001. The IJ rationally construed evidence in the record and provided a sufficiently individualized analysis of Kabir’s situation. See id. at 1000. Aceordingly, Kabir’s withholding of removal claim fails. See id. at 1001 n. 5.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.