MOHAMMAD RAHMAN V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-72622 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 20 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOHAMMAD RAHMAN, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-72622 Agency No. A094-922-849 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.