United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60804

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. A201 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 Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 28, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60804 Document: 00516256013 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2022
No. 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 has a 

well-founded fear of future persecution by those members based on his 

political opinion. Mamun also challenges the denial of his CAT claim and

asserts that the IJ did not act as a neutral arbiter. 

We review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings 

under the substantial 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.3d 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 show 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). The 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: 03/28/2022
No. 20-60804

3

Mamun’s assertions regarding his CAT claim are conclusional 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] 

would 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). 

Because 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