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 reopen his removal proceedings. Hossain contends that he put forward 

sufficient evidence that conditions in Bangladesh have worsened for those, like 

him, who are active members of the Bangladesh National Party (BNP), a

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. 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: 05/19/2015
No. 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 the 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, without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise 

so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible 

rational approach.” Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 

2009). We review factual findings for substantial evidence 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, the IJ and BIA both properly compared 

conditions in Bangladesh at the time of Hossain’s removal hearing with the 

conditions there when Hossain 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. Gonzales, 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 periods 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. See 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, although the killing of Hossain’s father 

2

 Case: 14-60624 Document: 00513047625 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2015
No. 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. Though Hossain asserts that AL members issued threats against him 

to his family members, the statements submitted by Hossain’s family do not 

compel the finding that these specific threats were made. See id.

Hossain faults the BIA for not discussing all of the evidence that he 

submitted in support of his motion to reopen as well as additional evidence 

that he presented to the BIA. The BIA was not required to address each piece 

of evidence that Hossain submitted with the motion to reopen, see AbdelMasieh v. I.N.S., 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1996), and Hossain 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