KALAM ULLAH V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 16-73874 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on February 10, 2020.
Download PDF
FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KALAM ULLAH, AKA Mahammed Sayedul Hoq, AKA Mohammad Hoq, AKA Mohammed Hoq, No. JUL 7 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-73874 Agency No. A075-653-618 Petitioner, ORDER v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and WARDLAW and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. The memorandum disposition filed on February 6, 2020, and appearing at 793 F. App’x 551, is amended as follows: At pages 552–53, replace <Because Petitioner did not provide independent corroborating evidence, and his claims turned on his own testimony, the IJ properly determined that Petitioner was not entitled to withholding of removal or protection under the CAT.> with <Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s and IJ’s conclusion that the documentary evidence submitted by Petitioner was insufficient to establish his claims. Accordingly, the agency properly concluded that Petitioner was not entitled to withholding of removal or protection under the CAT.> With this amendment, the panel has unanimously voted to deny Petitioner’s petition for rehearing. The petition for rehearing is DENIED. No further petitions shall be entertained. 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.
