19-1637

Hossain-Manik v. Garland

BIA

A208 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 

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 10th 4 day of March, two thousand twenty-two.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,

8 MICHAEL H. PARK,

9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _____________________________________

12

13 TOFAJJAL HOSSAIN-MANIK, AKA

14 TOFAJJAL HOSSAIN MANIK, AKA

15 TOFAJJAL HOSSAINMANIK, AKA

16 TOFAJJAL MANIK,

17 Petitioner,

18

19 v. 19-1637

20 NAC

21 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 

22 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

23 Respondent.

24 _____________________________________

25

26 FOR PETITIONER: Patrick Crowley, Esq., New York, 

27 NY.

28

29 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 

30 Attorney General; Margaret Kuehne 

31 Taylor, Senior Litigation Counsel; 

32 Katherine S. Fischer, Trial 

33 Attorney, Office of Immigration 
2

1 Litigation, United States 

2 Department of Justice, Washington, 

3 DC.

4

5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 

7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 

8 is DENIED.

9 Petitioner Tofajjal Hossain-Manik, a native and citizen 

10 of Bangladesh, seeks review of an April 29, 2019 decision of 

11 the BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re Tofajjal 

12 Hossain-Manik, No. A 208 680 439 (B.I.A. Apr. 29, 2019). We 

13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 

14 procedural history in this case.

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

16 Hossain-Manik’s motion for reconsideration. See Jian Hui 

17 Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 173 (2d Cir. 2008). A “motion 

18 [to reconsider] shall specify the errors of law or fact in 

19 the previous order and shall be supported by pertinent 

20 authority.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C); see also 8 C.F.R. 

21 § 1003.2(b)(1). A motion to reconsider “is a request that 

22 the Board reexamine its decision in light of additional legal 

23 arguments, a change of law, or perhaps an argument or aspect 

24 of the case which was overlooked.” Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 
3

1 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks 

2 omitted). If the movant asserts a change in the law, he must 

3 also show how that change “materially affects” the outcome of 

4 his case. In re O-S-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 56, 58 (B.I.A. 2006). 

5 The BIA does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to 

6 reconsider where the motion merely repeats arguments that the 

7 BIA has previously rejected. Jin Ming Liu, 439 F.3d at 111.

8 Hossain-Manik asked the BIA to reconsider the adverse 

9 credibility determination in light of Hong Fei Gao v. 

10 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2018), in which we cautioned 

11 the agency about relying on omissions in an asylum applicant’s 

12 initial statements where those omissions did not create 

13 inconsistency. Id. at 82. Hossain-Manik failed to 

14 demonstrate how Hong Fei Gao, which was decided four days 

15 before the BIA’s previous decision in his case, materially 

16 impacted the outcome. In re O-S-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 58. 

17 Although the adverse credibility determination relied, in 

18 part, on Hossain-Manik’s omission of threatening phone calls 

19 from his personal statement, the agency also relied on three 

20 inconsistencies between his statement, documentary evidence, 

21 and testimony regarding when Hossain-Manik became interested 

22 in politics, what injuries he sustained in one of two 
4

1 assaults, and whether his father was assaulted before or after 

2 Hossain-Manik left Bangladesh. The BIA did not err in 

3 concluding that these inconsistencies, which relate to the 

4 political opinion at the basis of his claim, one of only two 

5 assaults, and the timeline of events were sufficient grounds 

6 for the adverse credibility determination absent the 

7 omission. See Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d 

8 Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single inconsistency might preclude an 

9 alien from showing that an IJ was compelled to find him 

10 credible. Multiple inconsistencies would so preclude even 

11 more forcefully.”). Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in 

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

13 of reconsideration. In re O-S-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 58. 

14 Hossain-Manik’s motion otherwise reiterated arguments raised 

15 on appeal, which are not proper grounds for a reconsideration 

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

17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

18 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 

19 stays VACATED.

20 FOR THE COURT: 

21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 

22 Clerk of Court