Syad Shahnowaz v. Robert Wilkinson ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 11 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SYAD MOHAMMED SHAHNOWAZ, No. 19-72797
AKA Abu Noyaz,
Agency No. A096-389-884
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 9, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN, IKUTA, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Syad Mohammed Shahnowaz, a citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of an
Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying Shahnowaz’s claim for relief under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review for substantial evidence and may
grant relief only if the record compels a contrary conclusion. Yali Wang v. Sessions,
861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252and deny the petition.
To obtain CAT relief, Shahnowaz must prove that government officials or
private actors with government consent or acquiescence would “more likely than
not” torture Shahnowaz if he were removed to Bangladesh. Garcia-Milian v.
Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014) (quotations omitted). “Acquiescence
of a public official requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting
torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his or her legal
responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(7). But
“general ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and prevent crime
will not suffice to show acquiescence.” Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829,
836 (9th Cir. 2016).
Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. Shahnowaz does not
claim past torture. And the BIA reasonably concluded that Shahnowaz had not
demonstrated that the Bangladesh government would consent to or acquiesce in
Motin or his associates torturing Shahnowaz. Nor are Shahnowaz’s general
allegations of corruption within the Bangladeshi police sufficient to meet the CAT
standard. We will “reverse[] agency determinations that future torture is not likely
2
only when the agency failed to take into account significant evidence establishing
government complicity in the criminal activity.” Id. Shahnowaz has not made such
a showing here. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir.
2010) (“generalized evidence of violence and crime” does not meet CAT standard).
Finally, the BIA did not require Shahnowaz to show first-hand knowledge of
corruption between Motin and the Bangladesh government. The BIA instead
determined that Shahnowaz did not meet his burden because he showed no apparent
relationship between Bangladeshi officials and Motin, and the country conditions
reports did not suggest that Bangladeshi officials would acquiesce in any torture by
Motin. The record does not compel a contrary conclusion.
PETITION DENIED.
3