22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T45d,MEMORANDUM Mohammad Humayun Kabir, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence, Gonzalez-Hemandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995 , 998 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that, even if Kabir was persecuted on account of a protected ground, the government rebutted the presumption of a clear probability of future persecution by establishing changed circumstances in Bangladesh. See Gonzalez-Hemandez, 336 F.3d at 999-1001. The IJ rationally construed evidence in the record and provided a sufficiently individualized analysis of Kabir’s situation. See id. at 1000. Ac eordingly, Kabir’s withholding of removal claim fails. See id. at 1001 n. 5. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T48a,

MEMORANDUM

Mohammad Humayun Kabir, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence, Gonzalez-Hemandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995 , 998 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that, even if Kabir was persecuted on account of a protected ground, the government rebutted the presumption of a clear probability of future persecution by establishing changed circumstances in Bangladesh. See Gonzalez-Hemandez, 336 F.3d at 999-1001. The IJ rationally construed evidence in the record and provided a sufficiently individualized analysis of Kabir’s situation. See id. at 1000. Ac eordingly, Kabir’s withholding of removal claim fails. See id. at 1001 n. 5.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.