18

- 899 Hoque v. Barr BIA Christensen , IJ A208 311 658 

### 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 TO 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**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the**  **Thurgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 4**  **t h**  **da y of**  **S e**  **p t**  **e m**  **b e**  **r , two thousand**  **t w**  **e n**  **t y**  **.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **REENA RAGGI ,**  7 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR. ,**  8 **JOSEPH F. BIANCO ,**  9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **MOHAMMAD RAISAL HOQUE ,**  13 **Petitioner ,**  14 15

**v. 18** 

**- 899**  16 **NAC** 17 **WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES**  18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL ,**  19 **Respondent .**  20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Khagendra Gharti

- Chhetry, Esq. , 23 Chhetry & Associates, P.C., New 24 York , NY

. 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 27 Attorney General ; Melissa Neiman

28 Kelting , Assistant Director ; 29 Anthony J. Messuri , Trial 30 Attorney, Office of Immigration 312 Litigation , United States 1 Department of Justice, Washington, 2 D C. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 7

is DENIED

. 8

Petitioner Mohammad Raisal Hoque , a native and citizen 9

of Bang ladesh , seeks review of a March 22, 2018 , decision of 10

the BIA affirming a June 2 7, 2017 , decision of an Immigration 11

Judge (“IJ”) denying Hoque asylum, withholding of removal, 12
and protection under the Conve ntion Against Torture (“CAT”)

. 13

In r e Mohammad Raisal Hoque , No. A208 311 658 ( B.I.A. Mar

. 22 , 14

201 8 ), aff ’g No. A208 311 658 ( Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jun. 27 , 15

2017 ). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 16
underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 17

We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for 18

the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 19

Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The standards of 20

review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 21
Lecaj v. Holder , 616 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 2010). 22
The agency concluded that Hoque established past 233 persecution at the hands of Awami League members who opposed 1
his membership in the rival Bangladesh Nationalist Party 2

(“BNP”)

. Given this past persecution, Hoque was entitled to 3
a presumption of a well

- founded fear of future persecution. 4

8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). However, the Government may re but 5
this presumption if a preponderance of the evidence shows 6
that an applicant can safely and reasonably relocate within 7
the country of removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B) , 8

(ii) ; see Singh v. BIA , 435 F.3d 216, 219 (2d Cir. 2006) 9
(“Asylum in the Unit ed States is not available to obviate re

10
location to sanctuary in one’s own country.”). In 11
determining whether internal relocation is reasonable, the IJ 12
“consider[s] . . . whether the applicant would face other 13
serious harm in the place of suggested reloc ation; any ongoing 14
civil strife within the country; administrative, economic, or 15
judicial infrastructure; geographical limitations; and social 16
and cultural constraints, such as age, gender, health, and 17

social and familial ties.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3). 18

The preponderance of the evidence supports the agency’s 19
conclusion that Hoque could reasonably avoid future 20
persecution by relocating within Bangladesh because he had 214 previously safely relocated to Dha ka for nearly two years 1

from November 2012 to August 2014 . There, he opened a 2

business and did not ex perienc e any persecution despite 3
continuing to engage in political activity

. He was not 4
targeted by the Awami League until he moved back to his home 5

in Noakhali . When he fled again to Dhaka in February 2015 6

for a few months before he left for the United States, he 7
received threatening telephone calls but suffered no harm

. 8
Given the lack of evidence that Awami League members looked 9

for him or would be able to locate him in Dhaka, the IJ did 10
not err in finding that the threats did no t preclude a finding 11

that Hoque could safely relocate

. See 8 U.S.C. 12

§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (providing that “the administrative findings 13
of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator 14

would be compelled to conclude to the contrary”). 15
Hoque mainly argues that the IJ did not explicitly 16

consider all the factors outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3). 17

As the Government notes, Hoque did not exhaust this argument 18

before the BIA. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 480 19
F.3d 104, 122 (2d Cir. 2007) (requiring petitioner to raise 20

all issues before the BIA). Exhaustion aside, while the IJ 215 did not go through each factor individually, he made note of 1
the relevant regulation, which explicitly states that the 2
“factors may, or may not, be relevant, depending on all the 3
circumstances of the case, and are not necessarily 4

determinativ e of whether it would be reasonable for the 5
applicant to relocate.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3). The IJ 6
implicitly considered that relocation was reasonable based on 7
Hoque’s personal circumstances because Hoque had previously 8

relocated for a two

- year period and opened a business with a 9

friend. I d. (listing personal characteristics, such as age, 10
health, gender, and social and family ties, as factors to be 11

considered). 12
Hoque also argues that the IJ failed to fully consider 13

that the time he spent in Dhaka f rom November 2012 to August 14
2014 was a “period of relative calm,” and therefore his 15
ability to live there unharmed was not dispositive as to 16

internal relocation. Again, as the Government notes, Hoque 17
did not exhaust this argument before the BIA. See Lin Zhong , 18
480 F.3d at 122. Regardless, the IJ consider ed the 19
background evidence, which does not reflect a period of calm 20
while Hoque was living in Dhaka. The evidence demonstrates 216 that “political violence has long been part of the political 1
landscape in Bangladesh,” including during the period Hoque 2

was in Dhaka. Admin R. (“AR”) 582. A 2015 report on 3
elections in Bangladesh details 2013 political protests that 4

resulted in 300 deaths. See AR 547. Another article 5

recounts a May 2013 “massac re” in Dhaka of a BNP

- backed 6
Islamic group by security forces. See AR 577. There are 7
numerous references to political violence leading up to and 8
during the January 2014 election. See, e.g. , AR 647

. 9
Hoque’s own asylum statement mentions how the Awami League 10

targeted BNP members after the January 2014 election

. See 11

AR 507. 12
Given Hoque’s prior safe re location during a period in 13
which political violence was occurring, s ubstantial evidence 14

supports the agency’s conclusion that Hoque could reasonably 15
internally relocate to avoid future harm

. The agency’s 16
determination is dispositive of asylum, withholding of 17

removal, and CAT relief. See Lecaj , 616 F.3d at 119 (holding 18
that applicant who fai ls to establish fear of harm required 19
for asylum “necessarily” fails to meet higher standard for 20
withholding of removal and CAT relief). 217 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 2

sta ys VACATED. 3

FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 5 Clerk of Court 6