Islam v. Rosen, No. 19-60627 (5th Cir. 2021)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-60627 Document: 00515720835 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 26, 2021 No. 19-60627 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Shafiqul Islam, Petitioner, versus Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A201 526 104 Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Shafiqul Islam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the decision and order of the immigration judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 19-60627 Document: 00515720835 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2021 No. 19-60627 Torture (CAT) relief. Because Islam does not substantively challenge the BIA’s dismissal of either his CAT claim or his claim that the IJ violated his due process rights, he has abandoned those claims. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Although Islam argues that the IJ lacked sufficient justification to require that he provide reasonably available evidence in support of his application and, alternatively, that the IJ erroneously determined that such evidence was reasonably available, he did not raise these arguments before the BIA, and we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 588 (5th Cir. 2011); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Islam fails to show that the denial of asylum was unsupported by substantial evidence. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). He, therefore, necessarily also fails to show that he was entitled to withholding of removal. See Yang, 664 F.3d at 588-89. The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction. 2

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.