### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 60624 Summary Calendar

MOHAMED SOLAIMAN HOSSAIN , Petitioner

v. LORETTA LYNCH , U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A200 683 162

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mohamed Solaiman Hossain, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying Hossain’s motion
to r eopen his removal proceedings. Hossain contends that he put forward sufficient evidence t hat conditions in Bangladesh have worsened for those, like him, who are active members of the Bangladesh National Party (BNP), a

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 19, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-60624 Document: 00513047625 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2015N o. 14

- 60624
political party opposed to the Awami League (AL) , the ruling party. He contends that his evidence, particularly evidence that AL members killed his father, who was also an active member in an opposition political party, showed that conditions in Bangladesh had materially changed

. The BIA adopted the IJ’s decision, and so we review t he decisions of both the IJ and the BIA. See Wang v. Holder , 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Our review is for abuse of discretion , and we will uphold the BIA’s decision as long as “ it is not capricious, w ithout foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any percep tible rational approach.” Gomez

- Palacios v. Holder , 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009)

. We review factual findings for substantial evide n ce and will not overturn them “ unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Id. In determining whether Hossain’s proceedings should be reopened on the basis of changed country conditions, t he IJ and BIA both properly compared conditions in Bangl adesh at the time of Ho ssain’s removal hearing w ith the conditions there when Ho ssain filed the motion to reopen. See Gotora v. Holder , 567 F. App’x 219, 222 (5th Cir. 2014) ( citing In re S

- Y

- G , 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2007)) ; see also Panjwani v. G onzales , 401 F.3d 626, 633 (5th Cir. 2005) (comparing conditions at the time the alien was ordered removed to those at the time the alien filed the motion to reopen). As they explained, though the State Department Human Rights Reports from both time perio ds show that political violence occurred in Bangladesh , the reports support the finding that the violence was ongoing or increased only incrementally, which is insufficient to show that the conditions materially changed in a manner warranting reopening

. S ee Xiao Zhou v. Holder , 575 F. App’x 355, 356 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing S

- Y

- G , 24 I. & N. Dec. at 257) ; Gotora , 567 F. App’x at 222. Moreover, al though the killing of Hossain’s father

2 Case: 14-60624 Document: 00513047625 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2015N o. 14

- 60624
confirms the reports’ observations that political violence continues to occur in Bangladesh, a single instance of brutal violence does not compel a conclusion that political violence has escalated generally. See Gomez

- Palacios , 560 F.3d
at 358

. Tho ugh Hossain asserts that AL members issued threats against him to his family m embers , the statements submitted by Hossain’s family do not compel the finding that these specific threats were made. See id. Hossain fau l ts the BIA for not discussing all of the evidence that he submitted in support of his motion to reopen as well as add itional evidence that he presented to the BIA. The BIA was not required to address each piece of evidence that Ho ssain submitted with the motion t o reopen, s ee Abdel

Masieh v. I.N.S. , 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1996), and Ho ssain does not explain what new facts could be gleaned from the evidence that the BIA did not explicitly address in its decision. Moreover, because the BIA is barred from making findings of fact , see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv), the record on appeal to the BIA is limited to the record before the IJ, Enriquez

- Gutierrez v. Holder , 612 F.3d 400, 409

- 10 (5th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, Hossain’s petition for review is DENIED.

3 Case: 14-60624 Document: 00513047625 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/19/2015