Mostofa

Mostofa v. Ashcroft

Good Law
99 F. App'x 111
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 17, 2004No. 03-70154; Agency No. A70-187-723California409 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Gulam Mostofa, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Mostofa’s application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to former 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a), see Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), and review the IJ’s decision because his conclusions were adopted by the BIA. See Arulampalam v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 679, 680 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.2000) (“[T]he IJ’s determination that an alien is not eligible for asylum must be upheld if supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence in the record.”).

Aside from doubting Mostofa’s credibility, the IJ also concluded that Mostofa did not suffer past persecution. Substantial evidence supports this conclusion, as the record evidence of Mostofa’s injuries does not compel a finding of past persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir.1995) (“Although a reasonable factfinder could have found this incident sufficient to establish past persecution, we do not believe that a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.