18

- 3760 Ashif v. Barr BIA Poczter, IJ A205 014 432 

### 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 20**  **th d**  **a y of**  **October, two thousand**  **twenty**
**.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,** 7 **Chief Judge,** 8 **PIERRE N. LEVAL,** 9 **RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,** 10 **Circuit Judges.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **KHONDOKER ZUBAIR ASHIF ,**  14 **Petitioner ,**  15 16

**v. 18** 

**- 3760**  17 **NAC** 18 **WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES**  19 **ATTORNEY GENERAL ,**  20 **Respondent**
**.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Thomas V

. Massucci
, New York, NY

. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Ethan P. Davis
, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General ; Paul Fiorino, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel, 28 Katherine A. Smith , Trial 29 Attorney, Office of Immigration 30 Litigation
, United States 31 322 Department of Justice, Washington, 1
D C. 2 3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 4

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 5

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 6

is DENIED. 7

Petitioner Khondoker Zuba i r Ashif
, a native and citizen 8

of Bangla desh, seeks review of a November 28, 2018
, decision 9

of the BIA affirming an October 27, 2017, decision of an 10

Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, 11

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 12

Against Torture (“CAT”). In r e Khondoker Zuba i r Ashif
, No. 13

A205 014 432 (B.I.A. Nov. 28 , 201 8 )
, aff’g No. A205 014 432 14

(Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 27, 2017). We assume the parties’ 15

familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 16

In lieu of filing a brief, the g overnment moves for 17

summary denial and to stay briefing. Rather than determine 18

if the petition is frivolous as required for summary denial, 19

Pillay v. INS , 45 F.3d 14, 16

– 17 (2d Cir. 1995), we construe 20

the g overnment’s motio n as a n opposition brief and deny the 21

petition on the merits. 223 Ashif did not allege past persecution, and thus had the 1

burden to establish eligibility for asylum by demonstrating 2

a well

- founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. 3

§ 1208.13(b)(2); Ram sameachire v. Ashcroft , 357 F.3d 169, 178 4

(2d Cir. 2004). This showing “requires that the alien 5

present credible testimony that he subjectively fears 6

persecution and establish that his fear is objectively 7

reasonable.” Ramsameachire , 357 F.3d at 178. A f ear is 8

objectively reasonable “even if there is only a slight, though 9

discernible, chance of persecution.” Diallo v. INS
, 232 F.3d 10

279, 284 (2d Cir. 2000). On the other hand, a fear is not 11

objectively reasonable if it lacks “solid support” in the 12

record and is merely “speculative at best.” Jian Xing Huang 13

v. U.S. INS , 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005). 14

Under the circumstanc es of this case, we have reviewed 15

both the IJ’s and BIA’s decision s “for the sake of 16

completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 448 F.3d 17

524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review factual findings for 18

substantial evidence and questions of law de novo

. 19

See Yanqin Weng v. Holder , 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 20

Having done so, w e find no error in the agency’s determination 214 that Ashif failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable 1

fear of future persecution. 2

Ashif assert s that following his arrival in the United 3

States he was falsely charged with murder in Bangladesh
, and 4

that if he return s , the Bangladeshi authorities w ill arrest 5

and torture him. But w hile Ashif presented evidence showing 6

that he is in fact being prosecuted in a criminal case in 7

Bangladesh, his evidence also suggest s that he is receiving 8

adequate pro tections, in that a warrant was issued , he has an 9

attorney , and three of his co

- defendants there were arrested 10

but released on bail. Moreover, a lthough the country 11

conditions reports cited by Ashif reflect a politicized and 12

sometimes corrupt judiciary, a s well as court backlog s , 13

arbitrary and warrantless arrests by security forces , and 14

unjustified detention s of op position leaders, Ashif has 15

presented no evidence to suggest that he himself would be 16

subject to such measures , particularly since he was not an 17

opposition leader. Accordingly, h is fear based on these 18

general country conditions is speculative at best

. Se e Jian 19

Xing Huang , 421 F.3d at 129. 20

215 Significantly, Ashif did not allege that his brother or 1

any of his other codefendants ha ve suffered any physical harm 2

while awaiting trial in Bangladesh

. See Melgar de Torres v. 3

Reno , 191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding that lack of 4

harm to similarly

- situated family members undermines 5

objective reasonableness of applicant’s fear). And Ashif’s 6

demonstrated lack of knowledge about the details of his case, 7

and lack of action beyon d hiring an attorney, further supports 8

the conclusion that he lacks a reasonable fear of persecution 9

in connection with his pending criminal charges. 10

Since Ashif ’s fail ure to demonstrate an objectively 11

reasonable fear of persecution is dispositive of hi s requests 12

for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief
, s ee 13

Lecaj v. Holder , 616 F.3d 111, 119 (2d Cir. 2010) , the 14

petition for review is DENIED. All pending motions and 15

applications are DENIED and stays VACATED. 16

FOR THE COURT: 17 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe, 18 Clerk of Court 19