Mohamed Solaiman Hossain v. Loretta Lynch
603 F. App'x 345
5th Cir.2015Background
- Petitioner Mohamed Solaiman Hossain, a Bangladeshi national and active member of the opposition Bangladesh National Party (BNP), sought to reopen his removal proceedings based on allegedly worsened country conditions.
- Hossain submitted evidence alleging increased political violence against BNP members and that members of the ruling Awami League (AL) killed his father and threatened him.
- The immigration judge (IJ) denied the motion to reopen; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) adopted the IJ’s decision.
- The IJ and BIA compared country conditions at the time of removal and at the time of the motion to reopen, relying in part on State Department Human Rights Reports.
- The IJ/BIA concluded the reports showed ongoing or only incremental increases in political violence and that a single killing and unverified family statements did not show a material change warranting reopening.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hossain showed materially changed country conditions warranting reopening | Country conditions deteriorated for BNP members; his father was killed by AL members and he faced threats, showing escalation | Country conditions reflected ongoing or only incremental violence; single incidents and uncorroborated statements do not show material change | Denied — petitioner did not show material change sufficient to reopen |
| Whether the BIA abused discretion by failing to address all submitted evidence | BIA failed to discuss all evidence and additional materials presented to the BIA | BIA need not address every piece of evidence; record on appeal is limited to IJ record and BIA may rely on adopted IJ findings | Denied — no abuse; BIA not required to discuss each item and is limited in making factual findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531 (discussing standard of review where BIA adopts IJ decision)
- Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354 (abuse-of-discretion standard and single-incident evidence insufficient to show material change)
- Panjwani v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 626 (comparing conditions at removal and at motion to reopen)
- Gotora v. Holder, [citation="567 F. App'x 219"] (application of changed-conditions analysis)
- Xiao Zhou v. Holder, [citation="575 F. App'x 355"] (incremental change in country conditions insufficient)
- Abdel-Masieh v. I.N.S., 73 F.3d 579 (BIA not required to address every piece of evidence)
- Enriquez-Gutierrez v. Holder, 612 F.3d 400 (record on appeal to BIA limited to IJ record)