2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-8-2015

Ibrahim Momin v. Attorney General United States

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This June is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University

School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2015 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of

Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Ibrahim Momin v. Attorney General United States" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 568.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/568
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________________________

No. 14-1690

__________________________

IBRAHIM MOMIN, 

 Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent 

______________________

On Petition for Review from the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A088-440-468

_______________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

April 15, 2015

Before: RENDELL, SMITH, and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

(Filed: June 8, 2015)

_______________________

OPINION*

_______________________

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Smith, Circuit Judge.
2

Ibrahim Momin is a native and citizen of Bangladesh. He entered the United 

States in October of 2010, crossing from Mexico into Texas. He filed a timely 

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

Against Torture (CAT). Momin claimed to be a member of the Bangladesh Nationalist 

Party (BNP), who suffered political persecution at the hands of rival Awami League 

members. In a decision dated March 31, 2011, the Immigration Judge (IJ) found 

Momin not credible and concluded that he failed to demonstrate either past persecution 

or a well-founded fear of future persecution required for asylum. The IJ also denied 

his application for withholding of removal and the protections of the CAT. In March 

of 2012, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Momin’s appeal. 

Momin did not petition for review of the BIA’s March 2012 decision. In

January of 2014, however, Momin filed a motion to reopen his proceeding with the 

BIA, claiming that he had a well-founded fear of persecution if he were returned to 

Bangladesh. Momin recounted his claim of persecution by Awami League members

who attacked him in 2009 and submitted a letter from his mother, referencing the 

family’s involvement in the BNP since 2008, his father’s decision to run for local 

office in March 2012, the abduction of his father by four Awami League members on 

January 28, 2013, and the fact that his father was found dead later that night. 

As further support for reopening, Momin submitted, inter alia, a letter from his 
3

uncle and two news articles. The uncle’s letter set out information pertaining to the 

disappearance and death of Momin’s father. It also confirmed that Momin’s family 

had been deeply involved in politics and asserted that Momin would be targeted if he 

returned to Bangladesh. The two articles mentioned the death of Momin’s father. 

The BIA denied Momin’s motion to reopen. This timely petition for review 

followed.1 Momin contends that the BIA erred in denying his motion to reopen

because it failed to examine the evidence Momin adduced of changed country 

conditions that established his well-founded fear of future persecution. According to 

Momin, the BIA “unreasonably reduced the evidentiary weight” of the evidence 

Momin submitted and improperly relied on the IJ’s earlier adverse credibility 

determination.2

We are not persuaded by Momin’s arguments. As the BIA observed, the motion 

 

1 The BIA had jurisdiction to consider the motion to reopen under 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(a). Because an order by the BIA denying a motion to reopen is a “final order 

of removal,” we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290 

F.3d 166, 171 (3d Cir. 2002). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for an 

abuse of discretion, id. at 170, and we will not disturb the BIA’s discretionary ruling 

unless it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.” Khan v. Att’y Gen., 691 F.3d 488, 

495 (3d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

2 We note that Momin’s opening brief states that he seeks judicial review of not only 

the denial of his motion to reopen, but also the denial of his application for asylum, 

withholding, and relief under the CAT. Petitioner’s Br. at 1. Consistent with that 

request, Momin challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and certain 

findings in the 2011 decision. Id. at 10. We cannot review the IJ’s findings and the 

BIA’s dismissal in 2012, however, as Momin never petitioned for review. See 8 
4

to reopen sought relief based on the same claim of political persecution by Awami 

League members that had been advanced in Momin’s initial application. His motion 

recounted his membership in the BNP and the 2009 attack he sustained at the hands of 

five Awami League members. The evidence he adduced to show a change in country 

conditions demonstrated the family’s continued involvement in BNP activity and his 

father’s subsequent abduction and murder in January of 2013, allegedly by Awami 

League members. Because both the motion to reopen and the initial asylum 

application sought relief based on the same underlying claim of political persecution, 

the BIA permissibly considered the IJ’s earlier adverse credibility determination. Gen 

Lin v. Att’y Gen., 700 F.3d 683, 688 n.3 (3d Cir. 2012). 

Momin’s contention that the BIA failed to consider the new evidence he 

adduced relating to his father’s death also lacks merit. The BIA discussed the 

substance and significance of Momin’s submissions. In addition, the BIA considered 

the two news articles Momin submitted, which mentioned the alleged murder of 

Momin’s father. The BIA set out several reasons for not according great weight to 

either article, including that both articles focused more on Momin’s circumstances in 

2008 and 2009 and his difficult pursuit of asylum than the circumstances surrounding 

his father’s death.

 

U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (establishing a 30 day time period to file a petition for review).
5

Momin asserts several times in his opening brief that the BIA violated his right 

to due process. Assuming these conclusory assertions are sufficient to raise a due 

process deprivation, we conclude that there is no merit to such a claim. It is well 

settled that even though “there is no constitutional right to asylum, aliens facing 

removal are entitled to due process.” Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 549 (3d Cir. 

2001). This requires an “opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a 

meaningful manner.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In an 

adjudicative context like this immigration proceeding, this means the alien is entitled to 

an “individualized determination” of hisrequest for relief. Id. We conclude that these 

requirements were satisfied as the BIA considered the evidence and arguments that 

Momin presented in his motion.

In sum, we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Momin’s motion to reopen his proceeding. Accordingly, we will deny Momin’s 

petition for review.