12 -43 28

Azad v. Hold er BIA Straus, IJ A09 9 2 20 96 3 

### U N I TE D S TATE S COURT O F AP PEA L S FOR T HE S E CO

ND C I R CU I T 

## S UM M ARY ORD E R

RULIN GS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECE DENTI AL EFFEC T. CITAT ION TO A SUMMARY O RDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMI TTED AND IS GOVER NED BY FEDER

AL RULE OF APPEL LATE PROCE DURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT ’S LOCAL RULE 32.1. 1. WHEN CITIN G A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT , A PARTY MUST CITE EITHE R THE FEDER AL APPENDIX OR AN ELECT RONICDATABASE (WITH THE NOTAT ION “SUMM ARY ORDER ”). A PARTYCITI NG A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A CO PY OFIT ON ANYPART Y NOT REPRESENT ED BYCOUN SEL. 1 At a state d term of the United Stat es Co urt o f App eals 2 for the Se cond Circu it, h eld a t the Thur good Marsh all United 3 State s Cou rthou se, 4 0 Fol ey Square, in the Ci ty ofNew York, 4 on th e 13 day of Au gust, two thous and f ourte en. th 5 6 PRESE NT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL , 8 ROSEM ARY S . POO LER, 9 DENNYCHIN , 10 Circu it Ju dges . 11

_____

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ __ 12 13 NASHR

AT SHAH AZ AD, 14 Petit ioner , 15 16 v. 12-43 28 17 NAC 18 ERIC H. HO LDER, JR., UNIT ED STATES 19 ATTOR

NEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent . 21

_____

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ __ 22 23 FOR PETITI ONER: GlennL. F ormic a, Wa de Lu ckett , 24 Formi ca Wi lliam s, P. C., N ew Haven, 25 Conne cticu t. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuar t F. Deler y, As sista nt At torne y 28 Gener al; Jennif er L. Ligh tbody , 29 Senio r Lit igati on Co unsel ; Edw ard E .1 Wigge rs, T rial Attor ney, Offic e of 2 Immig ratio n Lit igati on, United 3 State s Dep artme nt ofJust ice, 4 Washi ngton , D.C . 5 6 UPON DUE C ONSID ERATI ON of this peti tion for r eviewof a 7 Boardof I mmigr ation Appe als ( “BIA” ) dec ision , it is he reby 8 ORDER ED, A DJUDG ED, AND DE CREED that the petit ion f or re view 9 is DE NIED. 10 Petit ioner Nash rat S hah A zad, a nat ive a nd ci tizen of 11 Bangl adesh , see ks re view of an Octo ber 5 , 201 2, de cisio n of 12 the B IA af firmi ng a Janua ry 10 , 201 1, de cisio n of 13 Immig ratio n Jud ge (“ IJ”) Micha el W. Stra us, p reter mitti ng 14 his a pplic ation for asylu m anddeny ing h is ap plica tion for 15 withh oldin g of remov al an d rel ief u nder the C onven tion 16 Again st To rture (“CA T”). In reNash rat S hah A zad , No. A099 17 220 9 63 (B .I.A. Oct. 5, 2 012), aff’g No. A 099 2 20 96 3 18 (Immi g. Ct . Har tfordJan. 10, 2011) . We assu me th e par ties’ 19 famil iarit y wit h the unde rlyin g fac ts an d pro cedur al hi story 20 in th is ca se. 21 Under the circu mstan ces o f thi s cas e, we have 22 consi deredboth the IJ’s and t he BI A’s o pinio ns “f or th e 23 sake of co mplet eness .” Zaman v. Mukase y , 514 F.3d233, 237 24 (2d C ir. 2 008)( inter nal q uotat ion m arks omitt ed). The 25 appli cable stan dards of r evieware well- estab lishe d. See 8

21 U.S.C . § 1 252(b )(4)( B); Aliy ev v. Muka sey , 549 F.3d111, 115 2 (2d C ir. 2 008). 3 I. Prete rmiss ion o f Asy lum 4 Title 8, S ectio n 115 8(a)( 3) of the Unite d Sta tes C ode 5 provi des t hat n o cou rt sh all h ave j urisd ictio n to revie w the 6 agenc y’s f indin g tha t an asylu m app licat ion w as un timel y 7 under 8 U. S.C. § 115 8(a)( 2)(B) , or its f indin g of neith er 8 chang ed no r ext raord inarycirc umsta nces excus ing t he 9 untim eline ss un der 8 U.S. C. § 1158( a)(2) (D). 10 Notwi thsta ndingthat prov ision , we retai n jur isdic tion to 11 revie w con stitu tiona l cla ims a nd “q uesti ons o f law .” 8 12 U.S.C . § 1 252(a )(2)( D). 13 Azad conte nds t hat t he IJ“mis state d the fact s” in 14 findi ng th at th e 201 0 att ack o n his sist er’s newsp aper did 15 not m ateri ally affec t his elig ibili ty fo r asy lum. To t he 16 exten t tha t thi s arg ument “dis putes the corre ctnes s of the 17 IJ’s fact- findi ng” t hat h e was not invol ved w ith h is 18 siste r’s n ewspa per, he do es no t rai se a revie wable ques tion 19 of la w. Xiao Ji Ch en v. U.S. Dep’ t of Justi ce , 471 F.3d 20 315, 329 ( 2d Ci r. 20 06). 21 Insof ar as Azadargu es th at th e IJ’ s fac t-fin ding was 22 flawe d by an er ror o f law , his clai m lac ks me rit. Give n

31 Azad’ s vag ue te stimo ny ab out h is in volve ment with his 2 siste r’s n ewspa per, the I J’s f indin g tha t he had n o spe cific 3 invol vemen t nei ther “tota lly o verlo oked" nor “seri ously 4 misch aract erize d” th e evi dence . Mende z v. Holde r , 566 F.3d 5 316, 323 ( 2d Ci r. 20 09). 6 II. Withh oldin g of Remov al an d CAT Reli ef 7 Notwi thsta ndingAzad ’s ar gumen t to the c ontra ry, t he 8 agenc y didnot err i n fin ding that the h arm h e suf feredin 9 Bangl adesh did not r ise t o the leve l of perse cutio n. See 10 Ivani shvil i v. U.S. Dep’t of Justic e , 433 F.3d332, 342 (2d 11 Cir. 2006) . In find ing t hat A zad f ailedto e stabl ish p ast 12 perse cutio n, th e age ncy r eason ably relie d on the f act t hat 13 he wa s not phys icall y har med i n Ban glade sh an d rem ainedin 14 Bangl adesh , wit hout incid ent, for t wo ye ars f ollow ing t he 15 attempted assau lt. See i d. at 3 41 (n otingthat , in order to 16 const itute pers ecuti on, t he ha rm mu st be suff icien tly s evere 17 to ri se ab ove “ mere haras sment ”). Altho ugh c rimin al ch arges 18 were filedagai nst h im, t he re cord shows that Azadwas never 19 subje cted to se rious phys ical or me ntal harm and, 20 accor dingl y, hi s exp erien ces i n Ban glade sh do not const itute 21 past perse cutio n. See Mei Fu n Won g v. Holde r , 663 F.3d64, 22 72 (2 d Cir . 201 1).

41 The a gencyalso reas onabl y con clude d tha t Aza d fai led 2 to es tabli sh a well- found ed fe ar of futu re pe rsecu tion. See 3 Jian Xing Huang v. I NS , 421 F.3d125, 128- 29 (2 d Cir . 200 5) 4 (hold ing t hat a bsent soli d sup port in th e rec ord f or th e 5 petit ioner ’s as serti on th at he woul d be perse cuted , his fear 6 was “ specu lativ e at best” ). I n mak ing t his d eterm inati on, 7 the a gencyreas onabl y fou nd th at, a lthou gh Az ad’s famil y 8 membe rs in Bang lades h hadbeen thre atene d, su ed, a nd ha d 9 their news paper rans acked , the se ex perie nces did n ot 10 const itute pers ecuti on. See I vanis hvili , 433 F.3dat 3 42; 11 see a lso Melga r de Torre s v. Reno , 191 F.3d307, 313 (2d 12 Cir. 1999) (det ermin ing t hat p etiti oner’ s fea r of futur e 13 perse cutio n was dimi nishe d whe n sim ilarl y-sit uatedrela tives 14 conti nued to li ve in peti tione r’s n ative coun try w ithou t 15 harm) . Mo reove r, Az ad re maine d in Bangl adesh for two y ears 16 follo wing the a ttemp ted a ttack , wit hout incid ent, furth er 17 under cutti ng th e lik eliho od of futu re pe rsecu tion. 18 Final ly, b ecaus e Aza d’s C AT cl aim i s bas ed on the same 19 evide nce a s his with holdi ng of remo val c laim, the claim 20 fails for the s ame r eason s. See P aul v . Gon zales , 444 F.3d 21 148, 156 ( 2d Ci r. 20 06).

For t he fo regoi ng re asons , the peti tion for r eviewis 22 DENIE D. A s we have compl eted our r eview , the pend ing m otion 23 51 for a stayof r emova l in this petit ion i s DIS MISSE D as moot. 2 3 FOR T HE CO URT: Cathe rine O’Hag an Wo lfe, Clerk 4

6