Mohammad Rahman v. Loretta E. Lynch , 671 F. App'x 635 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 20 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MOHAMMAD RAHMAN,                                No.    14-72622
    Petitioner,                    Agency No. A094-922-849
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted December 14, 2016**
    Before:       WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    Mohammad Rahman, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for
    review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
    immigration judge’s decision denying his application for protection under the
    Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v.
    Gonzales, 
    453 F.3d 1182
    , 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for
    review.
    In his opening brief, Rahman accepts the agency’s determination that he was
    not credible, but challenges the denial of CAT protection. Substantial evidence
    supports the agency’s denial of Rahman’s CAT claim, because it is based on the
    same testimony the agency found not credible, and Rahman does not point to any
    other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than
    not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official
    in Bangladesh. See Shrestha v. Holder, 
    590 F.3d 1034
    , 1049 (9th Cir. 2010). We
    reject Rahman’s contention that the agency ignored evidence or erred in its
    analysis.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                   14-72622
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-72622

Citation Numbers: 671 F. App'x 635

Filed Date: 12/20/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023