Amar Kanti-Dey v. Loretta Lynch
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-60305 Affirmed in Part and Dismissed in Part] Judge: EGJ , Judge: JES , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 09/15/2017 [16-60305]
Case: 16-60305
Document: 00514087918
Page: 1
Date Filed: 07/25/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-60305
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 25, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
AMAR KANTI-DEY,
Petitioner
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A202 160 904
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Amar Kanti-Dey petitions this court for review of the decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the immigration
judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). This court reviews
the order of the BIA and will consider the underlying decision of the IJ to the
extent it was relied upon by the BIA. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593-94
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
*
Case: 16-60305
Document: 00514087918
Page: 2
Date Filed: 07/25/2017
No. 16-60305
(5th Cir. 2007); Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). Because the
BIA did not adopt the IJ’s determinations that Kanti-Dey was not targeted
because he was a Hindu and that Kanti-Dey could reasonably relocate within
Bangladesh, we will not review those aspects of the IJ’s decision. Yang v.
Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 584 n.3 (5th Cir. 2011).
We review the immigration courts’ rulings of law de novo and their
findings of fact for substantial evidence. See Zhu, 493 F.3d at 594. Under the
substantial evidence standard, reversal is improper unless this court decides
“‘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)
(citation omitted).
Kanti-Dey did not exhaust his arguments that (1) the BIA erroneously
adopted the flawed reasoning of the IJ; (2) the BIA and IJ failed to consider
whether his fear of future persecution was objectively reasonable; and (3) the
IJ had a duty to develop the factual basis for his claims given his pro se status.
Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 320-21 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we may
not consider them. Id.; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
Substantial evidence supports the finding by the BIA and the IJ that the
threats and assault Kanti-Dey suffered were insufficient to establish that he
had suffered past persecution. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 187-88
(5th Cir. 2004); Mikhael, 115 F.3d at 304. Substantial evidence also supports
the finding by the BIA and IJ that Kanti-Dey failed to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of future persecution so as to entitle him to asylum. See Zhao v.
Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 307 (5th Cir. 2005). The threats and assault were not
carried out under government sanction. Adebisi v. INS, 952 F.2d 910, 913-14
(5th Cir. 1992). Moreover, Kanti-Dey admitted that family members continue
to live in Bangladesh unharmed, which diminishes the reasonableness of
2
Case: 16-60305
Document: 00514087918
Page: 3
Date Filed: 07/25/2017
No. 16-60305
Kanti-Dey’s fears of future persecution. See Eduard, 379 F.3d at 193. Because
Kanti-Dey cannot meet the requirements for asylum, he has failed to establish
the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See id. at 186 n.2.
Finally, because Kanti-Dey has not presented credible evidence showing
that it is more likely than not that he will face torture if he is returned to
Bangladesh, he has not shown eligibility for relief under the CAT. See TamaraGomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 350 (5th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, Kanti-Dey’s petition for review is DISMISSED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?