Hossain v. Sessions
This text of Hossain v. Sessions (Hossain v. Sessions) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
16-4094 Hossain v. Sessions BIA A200 815 894 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 4 New York, on the 10th day of January, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MON JUR HOSSAIN, AKA RASSEL 14 BHUIYAN, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 16-4094 18 NAC 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New 25 York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Carl McIntyre, 29 Assistant Director; Brooke M. 30 Maurer, Trial Attorney, Office of 31 Immigration Litigation, United 32 States Department of Justice, 33 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Mon Jur Hossain, a native and citizen of
6 Bangladesh, seeks review of a November 10, 2016, decision of
7 the BIA denying Hossain’s motion to reopen his removal
8 proceedings. In re Mon Jur Hossain, No. A200 815 894 (B.I.A.
9 Nov. 10, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
10 underlying facts and procedural history of this case.
11 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen “for
12 abuse of discretion.” Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517
13 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the BIA’s factual findings
14 regarding country conditions under the substantial evidence
15 standard. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169
16 (2d Cir. 2008). Hossain concedes that his motion to
17 reopen, filed almost two years after the BIA’s decision
18 affirming his removal, is untimely under the 90-day
19 deadline for such motions. See 8 U.S.C. §
20 1229a(c)(7)(A)(C)(i).
21 However, he argues that the time limitation does not
22 apply because he sought reopening to re-apply for asylum,
23 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 2 1 Against Torture (“CAT”) based on new events in Bangladesh.
2 Specifically, he alleged that the Bangladeshi government
3 (led by the Awami League) filed false charges against him
4 because it perceives him to be affiliated with an Islamist
5 political party (the Jamaat Party). A motion to reopen to
6 apply for asylum is exempt from the time limitation if it
7 is filed to apply for asylum “based on changed country
8 conditions arising in the country of nationality or the
9 country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence
10 is material and was not available and would not have been
11 discovered or presented at the previous proceedings.”
12 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). In addition to establishing
13 a change in conditions, reopening is warranted only if a
14 movant establishes his “prima facie eligibility for asylum,
15 i.e., a realistic chance that he will be able to establish
16 eligibility.” Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70, 78 (2d
17 Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). The BIA did
18 not err in finding that Hossain failed to establish his
19 prima facie eligibility.
20 To establish eligibility for relief based on future
21 harm, an applicant must show that his fear is objectively
22 reasonable. Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178
23 (2d Cir. 2004). The BIA reasonably concluded that Hossain 3 1 did not produce reliable evidence as needed to meet his
2 burden. Hossain offered documents purportedly showing that
3 the Bangladeshi government falsely charged him for
4 participating in riots. The BIA reasonably concluded that
5 the reliability of the documents was undermined by the fact
6 that Hossain was found not credible in the underlying
7 proceedings. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143,
8 147 (2d Cir. 2007). Hossain argues that his motion was
9 based on a claim independent of the grounds on which he was
10 found not credible. Hossain’s reliance on Paul v. Gonzales
11 is misplaced because there the agency had made only a
12 partial adverse credibility ruling. 444 F.3d 148, 150 (2d
13 Cir. 2006). Here, in contrast, the agency did not find
14 Hossain credible in any respect and the underlying adverse
15 credibility determination supports the BIA’s refusal to
16 credit documents on a motion to reopen, particularly when,
17 as here, the reliability of those documents rests on the
18 alien’s credibility. See Qin Wen Zheng, 500 F.3d at 147.
19 In addition, the reliability of the documents was
20 further undermined by Hossain’s failure to authenticate
21 them by any means and by inconsistencies within the
22 documents. Hossain offered no evidence that the documents
23 actually came from Bangladesh. Although the documents are 4 1 notarized, Hossain did not explain who obtained the
2 documents, who had the documents notarized, or how he
3 received the documents in the United States. Id. at 149
4 (upholding BIA decision not to credit document questionable
5 on its face and supported only by family member’s
6 affidavit). The documents were also internally
7 inconsistent: some charged Hossain with participating in a
8 riot on November 23, others said November 26, and others
9 contained additional dates that went unexplained. Because
10 Hossain offered no explanation of the documents or how they
11 related to one another, the BIA’s inference that documents
12 were contradictory was reasonable. See Siewe v. Gonzales,
13 480 F.3d 160, 167 (2d Cir. 2007) (“Where there are two
14 permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice
15 between them cannot be clearly erroneous. Rather, a
16 reviewing court must defer to that choice so long as the
17 deductions are not illogical or implausible.” (internal
18 citations and quotation marks omitted)).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Hossain v. Sessions, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hossain-v-sessions-ca2-2018.