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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 

3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 

New York, on the 20th 4 day of October, two thousand twenty.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,

8 Chief Judge,

9 PIERRE N. LEVAL,

10 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,

11 Circuit Judges.

12 _____________________________________

13

14 KHONDOKER ZUBAIR ASHIF,

15 Petitioner,

16

17 v. 18-3760

18 NAC

19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES

20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

21 Respondent.

22 _____________________________________

23

24 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY.

25

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 

27 Attorney General; Paul Fiorino, 

28 Senior Litigation Counsel, 

29 Katherine A. Smith, Trial 

30 Attorney, Office of Immigration 

31 Litigation, United States 

32
2

1 Department of Justice, Washington, 

2 DC.

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 petition for review 

7 is DENIED.

8 Petitioner Khondoker Zubair Ashif, a native and citizen 

9 of Bangladesh, seeks review of a November 28, 2018, decision 

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

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

12 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

13 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Khondoker Zubair Ashif, No. 

14 A205 014 432 (B.I.A. Nov. 28, 2018), aff’g No. A205 014 432

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

16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

17 In lieu of filing a brief, the government moves for 

18 summary denial and to stay briefing. Rather than determine 

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

20 Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 16–17 (2d Cir. 1995), we construe 

21 the government’s motion as an opposition brief and deny the 

22 petition on the merits.
3

1 Ashif did not allege past persecution, and thus had the 

2 burden to establish eligibility for asylum by demonstrating 

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

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

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

6 present credible testimony that he subjectively fears 

7 persecution and establish that his fear is objectively 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed

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

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

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

19 substantial evidence and questions of law de novo.

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

21 Having done so, we find no error in the agency’s determination 
4

1 that Ashif failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable 

2 fear of future persecution.

3 Ashif asserts that following his arrival in the United 

4 States he was falsely chargedwith murder in Bangladesh, and 

5 that if he returns, the Bangladeshi authorities will arrest 

6 and torture him. But while Ashif presented evidence showing 

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

8 Bangladesh, his evidence also suggests that he is receiving 

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

10 attorney, and three of his co-defendants there were arrested 

11 but released on bail. Moreover, although the country 

12 conditions reports cited by Ashif reflect a politicized and 

13 sometimes corrupt judiciary, as well as court backlogs, 

14 arbitrary and warrantless arrests by security forces, and 

15 unjustified detentions of opposition leaders, Ashif has 

16 presented no evidence to suggest that he himself would be 

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

18 opposition leader. Accordingly, his fear based on these 

19 general country conditions is speculative at best. See Jian 

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

21
5

1 Significantly, Ashif did not allege that his brother or 

2 any of his other codefendants have suffered any physical harm

3 while awaiting trial in Bangladesh. See Melgar de Torres v. 

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

5 harm to similarly-situated family members undermines 

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

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

8 and lack of action beyond hiring an attorney, further supports 

9 the conclusion that he lacks a reasonable fear of persecution 

10 in connection with his pending criminal charges. 

11 Since Ashif’s failure to demonstrate an objectively 

12 reasonable fear of persecution is dispositive of his requests 

13 for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, see

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

15 petition for review is DENIED. All pending motions and 

16 applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

17 FOR THE COURT: 

18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 

19 Clerk of Court