Fear-based

Holding that the Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion in finding that Petitioner was not subjected to past persecution where binding precedent explicitly holds that a threat of death constitutes persecution and recognizing "homosexuals in Benin" as a particular social group.

Holding that, where the Immigration Judge made an explicit finding that the persecutor's motive was not on account of a protected ground, the issue of persecutor’s motive is a factual finding that the BIA reviews for clear error that does not authorize de novo review at the circuit court. Declining to reach whether Matter of C-T-L-, 25 I&N Dec. 341 (BIA 2010) (extending the “one central reason” standard for asylum to withholding of removal) is legally flawed because the argument was foreclosed by the Immigration Judge's factual finding on the persecutor's motive. Upholding denial of relief under the Convention against Torture because the BIA applied the correct clear error standard of review to the likelihood of torture, a fact-based determination, and the BIA's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Holding that (1) the Immigration Judge's adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence; (2) the Immigration Judge did not err by improperly discounting the Petitioner's corroborating evidence when denying his application for asylum; (3) 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 (4) 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.

Holding that substantial evidence did not support the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination that the government had established a fundamental change in circumstances to rebut the Petitioner's well-founded fear of persecution for asylum and withholding of removal, and that the agency erred in placing the burden on Petitioner to prove that he could not avoid future persecution through internal relocation, rather than the government to show that he could avoid future persecution by relocating.