19

- 1637 Hossain

- Manik v. Garland BIA A 208 680 439 

### 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**  **ELE CTRONIC 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 10**  **th da**  **y of March**  **, two thousand twenty** 
**- two.**  4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **ROSEMARY S. POOLER,** 7 **MICHAEL H. PARK,** 8 **WILLIAM J. NARDINI,** 9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **TOFAJJAL HOSSAIN**

**- MANIK**  **, AKA**  13 **TOFAJJAL HOSSAIN MANIK , AKA**  14 **TOFAJJAL HOSSAINMANIK, AKA** 15 **TOFAJJAL MANIK ,**  16 **Petitioner ,**  17 18
**v. 19** 

**- 1637**  19 **NAC** 20 **MERRICK B. GARLAND , UNITED**  21 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 22 **Respondent**

**.** 23

**_____________________________________** 24 25 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Patrick Crowley , Esq., New York, 26 NY

. 27 28 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 29 Attorney General ; Margaret Kuehne 30 Taylor , Senior Litigation Counsel ; 31 Katherine S. Fischer , Trial 32 Attorney, Office of Immigration 332 Litigation , United States 1 Department of Justice, Washington, 2 D C. 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 tha t the petitio n for review 7

is DENIED

. 8

Petitioner Tofajjal Hossain

- Manik , a native and citizen 9

of Bangladesh , seeks review of a n April 29, 2019 decision of 10
the BIA denying his motion to reconsider

. In re Tofajjal 11

Hossain

- Manik , No. A 208 680 439 (B.I.A. Apr. 29, 2019 ). We 12
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 13
procedural history in this case

. 14

We find no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s denial of 15

Hossain

- Manik’s motion for reconsideration. See Jian Hui 16
Shao v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 138, 173 (2d Cir. 2008)

. A “motion 17

[ to reconsider ] shall specify the errors of law or fact in 18
the previous order and shall be supported by pertinent 19
authority.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C); see also 8 C.F.R. 20

§ 1003.2(b)(1). A motion to reconsider “is a request that 21
the Board reexamine its decision in light of additional legal 22
arguments, a change of law, or perhaps an arg ument or aspect 23

of the case which was overlooked.” Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales , 243 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks 1
omitted). If the movant asserts a change in the law, he must 2
also show how that change “ materially affects ” the outcome of 3

his case. In re O

- S

- G

- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 56, 58 (B.I.A. 2006). 4
The BIA does not abuse its discretion by d enying a motion to 5
reconsider where the motion merely repeats arguments that the 6
BIA has previously rejected. Jin Ming Liu , 439 F.3d at 111. 7

Hossain

- Manik asked the BIA to reconsider the adverse 8
credibility determination in light of Hong Fei Gao v. 9

Sessions , 891 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2018), in which we cautioned 10
the agency about relying on omissions in an asylum applicant’s 11

initial statements where those omissions did not create 12
inconsistency. Id. at 82. Hossain

- Manik failed to 13

demonstrate how Hong Fei Gao , which was decided four days 14
before the BIA’s previous decision in his case, materially 15
impacted the outcome. In re O

- S

- G

- , 24 I. & N. Dec. at 58. 16
Although the adverse credibility determination relied, in 17
part, on Hossain

- Manik’s omission of threatening phone calls 18
from his personal statement, the agency also relied on three 19
inconsistencies between his statement, documentary evidence, 20
and testimony regarding when Hossain

- Manik became interested 21
in politics, what injuries he sustained in one of two 224 assaul ts, and whether his father was assaulted before or after 1

Hossain

- Manik left Bangladesh. The BIA did not err in 2
concluding that these inconsistencies, which relate to the 3
political opinion at the basis of his claim, one of only two 4
assaults, and the timeli ne of events were sufficient grounds 5
for the adverse credibility determination absent the 6

omission

. See Likai Gao v. Barr , 968 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d 7
Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single inconsistency might preclude an 8
alien from showing that an IJ was compelled to find him 9
credible. Multiple inconsistencies would so preclude even 10
more forcefully.”) . Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in 11

the BIA’s conclusion t hat Hong Fei Gao did not warrant a grant 12

of reconsideration

. In re O

- S

- G

- , 24 I. & N. Dec. at 58. 13

Hossain

- Manik’s motion otherwise reiterated arguments raised 14
on appeal, which are not proper grounds for a reconsideration 15

motion. See J in Ming Liu , 439 F.3d at 111. 16

For t he foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 17

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 18

stays VACATED. 19

FOR THE COURT: 20 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe, 21 Clerk of Court 22