[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-13268

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A215-975-148

KIB RIA GOLAM, 

 Petitioner,

 versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(April 6, 2020)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 19-13268 Date Filed: 04/06/2020 Page: 1 of 4
2

Kib Golam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the 

order affirming the denial of his application 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). Golam applied for

asylum and withholding of removal on the ground that he had suffered past 

persecution on account of his political activities, but the Board of Immigration 

Appeals agreed with the finding of the immigration judge that Golam was not 

credible. We dismiss in part and deny in part Golam’s petition.

Golam argues that he is eligible for relief under the Convention, but we lack 

jurisdiction to consider that argument. The Board found that Golam did “not 

meaningfully challenge the Immigration Judge’s denial of protection under the 

Convention . . . [and] deem[ed] the denial of that form of protection waived.” 

“[A]bsent a cognizable excuse or exception, we lack jurisdiction to consider claims 

that have not been raised before the [Board].” Amaya–Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y 

Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

We dismiss that part of Golam’s petition seeking review of the denial of his 

application for relief under the Convention.

Substantial evidence supports the finding that Golam was not credible, and 

the Board identified specific and cogent reasons to support that finding. Chen v. 

Case: 19-13268 Date Filed: 04/06/2020 Page: 2 of 4
3

U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1230–31 (11th Cir. 2006). Golam based his claim 

of persecution on his membership in the Liberal Democratic Party and incidents 

involving the opposition ruling party, the Awami League, but there were several 

inconsistencies in Golam’s credible-fear interview with an asylum officer, his 

written application for asylum and withholding of removal, and his testimony at his 

removal hearing regarding his knowledge of the Party and his interactions with 

members of the League. During his interview and in his application, Golam stated 

that he was attacked and beaten twice, but he later testified at his removal hearing

that he was beaten “many times.” Golam told his interviewer that nothing 

happened to him after he moved to Dhaka, where he turned off all telephones and 

stayed inside a house, but Golam testified at his removal hearing that he did not 

feel safe in Dhaka and received threatening telephone calls. And although Golam 

professed to be a member of the Party, the immigration judge found that Golam 

“show[ed] a shocking lack of knowledge of” the political system in Bangladesh. 

Golam described the nature of the Party as “a political party in Bangladesh,” and 

when asked to explain its policies, stated that it was “a very good party” that 

“do[es] good for the . . . poor people and . . . the development of the country[,]” 

“always give[s] . . . plenty to the good thing,” and does “not accept any illegal 

things happens in the country.” Golam fails to explain how this record would 

compel a reasonable fact finder to reverse the adverse credibility finding against 

Case: 19-13268 Date Filed: 04/06/2020 Page: 3 of 4
4

him and conclude that he established eligibility for asylum relief or withholding of 

removal. See id. at 1233.

We DISMISS Golam’s petition for review of the denial of relief under the 

Convention and DENY his petition for review of the denial of asylum and 

withholding of removal.

DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.

Case: 19-13268 Date Filed: 04/06/2020 Page: 4 of 4