# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 60 804 Summary Calendar

**Mohin Uddin Mamun ,** 
Petitioner **,**

versus
**Merrick Garland,** U.S. Attorney General **,** Respondent

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A 201 443 184

Before **Wiener, Dennis,** and **Haynes,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  *
Petitioner Mohin Uddin Mamun is a native and citizen of Bangladesh

. He petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing the appeal of a decision in which an Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Mamun’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 28, 2022 Lyle W. Cayc e Clerk Case: 20-60804 Document: 00516256013 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2022No. 20

- 60804

2 under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Mamun contends that the BIA erred in dismissing his appeal because he established that he had suffered past persecution at the hands of members of the Awami League and ha s a well

- founded fear of future pe rsecution by those members based on his political opinion

. Mamun also challenges the d enial of his CAT claim and asserts that the IJ did not act as a neutral arbiter

. W e review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings under the subs tantial evidence standard, meaning that the findings must be based on the evidence and be substantially reasonable. Orellana

- Monson v. Holder , 685 F.3d 511, 517

- 18 (5th Cir. 2012). “Under the substantial evidence standard, reversal is improper unless we decide ‘ not only that the evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence compels it. ’ ” Chen v. Gonzales , 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006) (emphasis in original) (quoting Zhao v. Gonzalez , 404 F.3 d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005))

. The BIA’s determination that Mamun failed to demonstrate past persecution based on the cumulative effect of the threats and injuries he experienced is supported by substantial evidence. See id. ; see also Gjetani v. Barr , 968 F.3d 393, 397

- 98 (5th Cir. 2020); Majd v. Gonzales , 446 F.3d 590,
595

- 96 (5th Cir. 2006); Eduard v. Ashcroft , 379 F.3d 182, 188 (5th Cir. 2004)

. He also had to demonstrate a well

- founded fear of future persecution if removed to Bangladesh . As Mamun did not sho w that his attackers were government actors or sponsored by the government, it was his burden to show that relocation within Bangladesh was unreasonable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i)

- (iv); Lopez

- Gomez v. Ashcroft , 263 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2001). Th e BIA’s determination that Mamun failed to make this showing is supported by substantial evidence. As Mamun has failed to satisfy the asylum standard , he cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Orellana

- Monson , 685 F.3d at 518

. Case: 20-60804 Document: 00516256013 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2022No. 20

- 60804

3 Mamun’s assertions regarding his CAT claim are conclus ional and are supported only by general reports of conditions in Bangladesh . They are therefore insufficient to establish that “it is more likely than not [Mamun]

wou ld be tortured by, or with the acquiescence of, government officials acting under the color of law.” Hakim v. Holder , 628 F.3d 151, 155 (5th Cir. 2010).
B ecause Mamun’s removal proceedings were not fundamentally unfair, his contention that the IJ failed to act as a neutral arbiter fails. See Toscano

- Gil v. Trominski , 210 F.3d 470, 474 (5th Cir. 2000). The petition for review is **DENIED**

**.** Case: 20-60804 Document: 00516256013 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/28/2022