Mozammel Hoque v. Loretta Lynch

Fifth Circuit

Mozammel Hoque v. Loretta Lynch

647 F. App'x 334

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 27, 2016

Docket14-60898

StatusUnpublished

This text of 647 F. App'x 334 (Mozammel Hoque v. Loretta Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mozammel Hoque v. Loretta Lynch, 647 F. App'x 334 (5th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Mozammel Hoque, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an order of the immigration judge denying a second motion to reopen proceedings. Finding no abuse of discretion warranting relief, we deny Hoque’s request for remand to the BIA and deny the petition for review. See Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 549 (5th Cir.2006).

We agree with Hoque that the BIA should have considered the State Department’s 2013 international religious freedom (IRF) report submitted with and discussed in his brief to the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1003.23(b)(3); see also Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 304 (5th Cir.2005); Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir.1996). However, the BIA’s error is harmless because Hoque fails to demonstrate that he would be entitled to relief but for the error. See Cantu-Delgadillo v. Holder, 584 F.3d 682, 690 (5th Cir.2009); Beltran-Resendez v. INS, 207 F.3d 284, 287 (5th Cir.2000). The 2013 IRF report establishes no changed circumstances in Bangladesh excusing Hoque from the prohibitions against filing more than one motion to reopen and filing a motion to reopen more than 90 days after denial of immigration relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1003.23(b)(1), (b)(4)(i). Comparing the 2013 IRF report with the 2009 and 2012 IRF reports shows that conditions in Bangladesh continued largely unchanged or arguably worsened only incrementally, neither of which provides a sufficient basis for disregarding the time and numerical limitations on motions to reopen. See Panjwawi v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 626, 632 (5th Cir.2005). Hoque fails to demonstrate an abuse of discretion re *335 quiring remand of his case to the BIA or reversal of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal. See id.

PETITION DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Mozammel Hoque, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an order of the immigration judge denying a second motion to reopen proceedings. Finding no abuse of discretion warranting relief, we deny Hoque’s request for remand to the BIA and deny the petition for review. See Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 549 (5th Cir.2006).

We agree with Hoque that the BIA should have considered the State Department’s 2013 international religious freedom (IRF) report submitted with and discussed in his brief to the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1003.23(b)(3); see also Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 304 (5th Cir.2005); Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir.1996). However, the BIA’s error is harmless because Hoque fails to demonstrate that he would be entitled to relief but for the error. See Cantu-Delgadillo v. Holder, 584 F.3d 682, 690 (5th Cir.2009); Beltran-Resendez v. INS, 207 F.3d 284, 287 (5th Cir.2000). The 2013 IRF report establishes no changed circumstances in Bangladesh excusing Hoque from the prohibitions against filing more than one motion to reopen and filing a motion to reopen more than 90 days after denial of immigration relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1003.23(b)(1), (b)(4)(i). Comparing the 2013 IRF report with the 2009 and 2012 IRF reports shows that conditions in Bangladesh continued largely unchanged or arguably worsened only incrementally, neither of which provides a sufficient basis for disregarding the time and numerical limitations on motions to reopen. See Panjwawi v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 626, 632 (5th Cir.2005). Hoque fails to demonstrate an abuse of discretion re *335 quiring remand of his case to the BIA or reversal of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal. See id.

PETITION DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

647 F. App'x 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mozammel-hoque-v-loretta-lynch-ca5-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack