Hossain-Manik v. Garland
Hossain-Manik v. Garland
Opinion
19-1637 Hossain-Manik v. Garland BIA A208 680 439 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 10th day of March, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 MICHAEL H. PARK, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 TOFAJJAL HOSSAIN-MANIK, AKA 14 TOFAJJAL HOSSAIN MANIK, AKA 15 TOFAJJAL HOSSAINMANIK, AKA 16 TOFAJJAL MANIK, 17 Petitioner, 18 19 v. 19-1637 20 NAC 21 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 22 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 23 Respondent. 24 _____________________________________ 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: Patrick Crowley, Esq., New York, 27 NY. 28 29 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 30 Attorney General; Margaret Kuehne 31 Taylor, Senior Litigation Counsel; 32 Katherine S. Fischer, Trial 33 Attorney, Office of Immigration 1 Litigation, United States 2 Department of Justice, Washington, 3 DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 Petitioner Tofajjal Hossain-Manik, a native and citizen
10 of Bangladesh, seeks review of an April 29, 2019 decision of
11 the BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re Tofajjal
12 Hossain-Manik, No. A 208 680 439 (B.I.A. Apr. 29, 2019). We
13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history in this case.
15 We find no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s denial of
16 Hossain-Manik’s motion for reconsideration. See Jian Hui
17 Shao v. Mukasey,
546 F.3d 138, 173(2d Cir. 2008). A “motion
18 [to reconsider] shall specify the errors of law or fact in
19 the previous order and shall be supported by pertinent
20 authority.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C); see also 8 C.F.R.
21 § 1003.2(b)(1). A motion to reconsider “is a request that
22 the Board reexamine its decision in light of additional legal
23 arguments, a change of law, or perhaps an argument or aspect
24 of the case which was overlooked.” Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales,
2 1
439 F.3d 109, 111(2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks
2 omitted). If the movant asserts a change in the law, he must
3 also show how that change “materially affects” the outcome of
4 his case. In re O-S-G-,
24 I. & N. Dec. 56, 58(B.I.A. 2006).
5 The BIA does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to
6 reconsider where the motion merely repeats arguments that the
7 BIA has previously rejected. Jin Ming Liu,
439 F.3d at 111.
8 Hossain-Manik asked the BIA to reconsider the adverse
9 credibility determination in light of Hong Fei Gao v.
10 Sessions,
891 F.3d 67(2d Cir. 2018), in which we cautioned
11 the agency about relying on omissions in an asylum applicant’s
12 initial statements where those omissions did not create
13 inconsistency.
Id. at 82. Hossain-Manik failed to
14 demonstrate how Hong Fei Gao, which was decided four days
15 before the BIA’s previous decision in his case, materially
16 impacted the outcome. In re O-S-G-,
24 I. & N. Dec. at 58.
17 Although the adverse credibility determination relied, in
18 part, on Hossain-Manik’s omission of threatening phone calls
19 from his personal statement, the agency also relied on three
20 inconsistencies between his statement, documentary evidence,
21 and testimony regarding when Hossain-Manik became interested
22 in politics, what injuries he sustained in one of two
3 1 assaults, and whether his father was assaulted before or after
2 Hossain-Manik left Bangladesh. The BIA did not err in
3 concluding that these inconsistencies, which relate to the
4 political opinion at the basis of his claim, one of only two
5 assaults, and the timeline of events were sufficient grounds
6 for the adverse credibility determination absent the
7 omission. See Likai Gao v. Barr,
968 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d
8 Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single inconsistency might preclude an
9 alien from showing that an IJ was compelled to find him
10 credible. Multiple inconsistencies would so preclude even
11 more forcefully.”). Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in
12 the BIA’s conclusion that Hong Fei Gao did not warrant a grant
13 of reconsideration. In re O-S-G-,
24 I. & N. Dec. at 58.
14 Hossain-Manik’s motion otherwise reiterated arguments raised
15 on appeal, which are not proper grounds for a reconsideration
16 motion. See Jin Ming Liu,
439 F.3d at 111.
17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
18 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
19 stays VACATED.
20 FOR THE COURT: 21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 22 Clerk of Court
4
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished