N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LOKM AN HOSSAIN B AB U ,

Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 17-72104 Age n c y No. A093-299-492
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Oc tobe r 30, 2020 * * Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : GR

AB E R , C LIFTON, a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. Lokm an Hossa in B a

bu, a native and c itiz e n of B angla de s h, se e ks re vie w of the d e c ision of theB o a

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) that a ffirm e d the de te rm i nation of theim

m igration judge(IJ) to de ny de fe rra l of re m ova l unde r the



# FIL ED NOV 4 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
.

§ 1252(a )(1), and we de ny the pe tition for re vie w. 1 The IJ did not e rr in m aking a d ditiona l c re dibility findings on re m and. The B IA’ s ge ne ra l a

rtic ulat ion of the purpose for re m and, without e xpre ss re te ntion of jurisdic tion, wa s not suffic ie nt to lim it the sc o pe of re m and. Se e Fe rnande s v . Holde r , 619 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th C ir. 2010). The IJ a nd the B IA did not e rr in e va luating B a bu’ s C A T c la im ; the y

“ de nude d” B a

bu’ s C AT c la im

“ of his disc re dite d te stim o ny ” and inde pe nde ntly
c onside re d othe r non-disc re dite d e vide nc e in the re c ord tha t supporte d his c la im
. Shre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1049 (9th C ir. 2010). Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the

B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t the c ountry

c onditions evide nc e in the re c ord fa ile d to de m onstra

te it is m ore like ly

tha n not tha t B a bu would betorture d upon his re turn to B angla de sh. S e e K onou v . Holde r , 750 F.3d 1120, 1124–26 (9th C ir. 2004). The De pa

rtm e nt of Sta

te ’ s 2015 Hum a

n R i ghts R e port on B angla de sh de sc ribe d ge ne ra l strife but wa s insuffic ie ntly pa rtic u la riz e d to B a bu’ s

1 B a bu fa i le d to ra ise his a

rgum e n t unde r Pe re ira v . Se

ssions , 138 S. C t. 2105 (2018), be fore the B IA. As a re sult, we la c k jurisdic tion to re a c h the m e rits of tha t c l a im
. Se e Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004). In a ny e ve nt, the argum e nt is fore c lose d by Aguilar Fe rmin v . Barr , 958 F.3d 887, 889 (9th C ir. 2020) (“ [A] n initia l NTA ne e d not c onta in tim e , date , a nd pla c e inform a t ion to ve st a

n im m i gration c ourt with jurisdiction if suc h inform a tion is provide d be fore the he aring.” ). 2c irc um s ta

nc e s . Se e De lgado-Ortiz v. Holde r , 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th C ir. 2010) (pe r c uriam ). The e xpe rt’ s te stim ony an d re p ort we re insuffic ie ntly pa rtic ula riz e d , a s we ll a s spe c u lative and pre m ise d on disc re dite d te stim ony . PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

3