Holding that the the immigration judge's adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence; the immigration judge did not err by improperly discounting the Petitioner's corroborating evidence when denying his application for asylum; the immigration judge did not err, on remand, by conducting an additional hearing and taking oral testimony before denying Petitioner's application for asylum; and the immigration judge's determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate a likelihood that he would be tortured if returned to Bangladesh was supported by substantial evidence.
- Case Type
Holding that substantial evidence did not support the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination that the government had established a fundamental change in circumstances, as necessary to rebut the Petitioner's well-founded fear of persecution, and that the Board erred in denying the Petitioner's applications on the ground that the Petitioner could avoid future persecution through internal relocation.Case Type
Holding that the imposition of $100 in court costs, assessed attendant to a prayer for judgment continued under North Carolina law, does not qualify as penalty or punishment to constitute a “conviction” within the meaning of the Immigration and Naturalization Act under 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.; id. § 1101(a)(48)(A). The Court, therefore, held that the Petitioner is not statutorily barred from the relief from removal of cancellation of removal as a nonpermanent resident for the offense in question because it is not a conviction under immigration law.