[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-12105

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

ROBIUL ISLAM, 

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent.

____________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A213-165-923

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-12105 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 03/07/2024 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 23-12105

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and ANDERSON, 

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robiul 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 immigration judge that Islam 

was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal because, 

even assuming he was credible, he failed to prove that he suffered 

past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution. 

The Board also agreed that Islam was not tortured and was unlikely 

to be tortured if he returned to Bangladesh. We deny the petition.

Because the Board affirmed the decision of the immigration 

judge, we review both their decisions. Jathursan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 

17 F.4th 1365, 1372 (11th Cir. 2021). Our review of the decision is 

“limited” by “the highly deferential substantial evidence test,” under which “we must affirm if the decision of the Immigration Judge 

is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on 

the record considered as a whole.” Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 

1229, 1237 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under the substantial evidence test, we view the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the decision of the immigration judge and draw 

USCA11 Case: 23-12105 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 03/07/2024 Page: 2 of 5
23-12105 Opinion of the Court 3

all reasonable inferences in favor of that decision. Id. at 1236. We 

can reverse “only when the record compels a reversal; the mere 

fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is not 

enough to justify a reversal of the administrative findings.” Adefemi 

v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc).

Substantial evidence supports the finding that Islam did not 

suffer past persecution. Islam testified that in January 2017, he 

joined the Liberal Democratic Party and participated by distributing food, helping students in need, attending meetings, and voting for the party. Islam testified that in July 2018, five or six members of the Awami League political party attacked him in the street,

but his attackers fled after a bystander heard him scream. Islam testified that he stayed in the hospital for three days due to scrapes on 

his legs and a lump on his head, and a one-page medical document

recorded bleeding and swelling in unspecified parts of his body and 

treatment consisting of antiseptic lotion, antibiotics, and medication for inflammation and excess stomach acid. Although Islam testified that his attackers threatened to kill him if he did not leave his 

political party, he had no negative encounters with them over the 

next six months. Islam also testified that in December 2018, members of the Awami League attacked a Liberal Democratic Party 

rally that he and over 100 other people were attending, which resulted in him being trampled and fainting after being hit on the 

head with a hockey stick. He testified that he stayed in the hospital 

for seven days, and a one-page medical document recorded that he 

received an antibiotic for his conditions of bruises and swelling.

USCA11 Case: 23-12105 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 03/07/2024 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 23-12105

Considered cumulatively, these two isolated and brief incidents do not amount to persecution. “[P]ersecution is an extreme 

concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society 

regards as offensive.” Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338, 1355 (11th 

Cir. 2000). Even verbal threats “in conjunction with [a] minor beating” do not compel a finding that an alien has suffered persecution. 

Djonda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 514 F.3d 1168, 1174 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that no persecution occurred when officers beat an alien with a 

belt and kicked him, which caused lacerations and bruising that required medical treatment); see also Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 992 

F.3d 1283, 1291 (11th Cir. 2021) (insufficient evidence of past persecution when an alien was beaten by two plain-clothes officers 

that rendered him briefly unconscious and required his mother to 

stitch closed a cut on his head, was threatened with imprisonment 

and torture by Cuban officials and by the head of a group of Cuban 

government informants, and fired from three jobs as a waiter after 

government officials threatened the business owners). 

Islam challenges the alternative determination by the immigration judge that he was not credible, but because the Board did 

not adopt the immigration judge’s alternative adverse-credibility 

finding and instead assumed that Islam was credible, he was not 

prejudiced by the immigration judge’s adverse-credibility determination. See Ibrahim v. I.N.S., 821 F.2d 1547, 1550 (11th Cir. 1987). 

Substantial evidence also supports the finding that Islam did 

not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because internal relocation in Bangladesh was reasonable. See 8 C.F.R. 

USCA11 Case: 23-12105 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 03/07/2024 Page: 4 of 5
23-12105 Opinion of the Court 5

§ 1208.13(b)(2)(ii) (“An applicant does not have a well-founded fear 

of persecution if the applicant could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s country of nationality . . . .”); 

id. § 1208.16(b)(2), (3). “When the applicant does not establish past 

persecution, he ‘bear[s] the burden of establishing that it would not 

be reasonable for him . . . to relocate, unless the persecutor is a 

government or is government-sponsored.’” Farah v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 

12 F.4th 1312, 1330 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.16(b)(3)(i)) (alterations in original). Islam failed to establish

either past persecution on the basis of being a member of the Liberal Democratic Party or that the Awami League is a government 

or government-sponsored actor, so we “presume that internal relocation would be reasonable, unless [he] establishes otherwise by 

a preponderance of the evidence.” Id.; see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b). Islam acknowledged that other areas of the country contain more 

members of his political party, he held no leadership position 

within his party, and during his two years of low-level membership 

he suffered only one targeted attack by a handful of individuals, all 

reasonably suggesting that the Awami League would not search 

the country for him if he returned. For these reasons, the record 

does not compel a finding that Islam has a well-founded fear of future persecution. And his failure to establish that he is eligible for 

asylum necessarily defeats his argument that he is eligible for relief 

under the Convention. See Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 992 F.3d 

1283, 1290 n.2 (11th Cir. 2021). 

We DENY the petition for review.

USCA11 Case: 23-12105 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 03/07/2024 Page: 5 of 5