Suhel Ahmed v. Blanche

── Suhel Ahmed v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: June 10, 2026 Category: General 24-458 Suhel Ahmed v. Blanche BIA A241 887 326/327/328 A241 696 862 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 A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 10th day of June, two thousand twenty- six. PRESENT: SUSAN L. CARNEY, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ MOHAMMAD SUHEL AHMED, AHMED ISTIYAK IFTE, LUTHFA BEGUM, R. A. J., * Petitioners, v. 24-458 NAC * We use only initials to refer to the minor petitioner in this publicly accessible order. TODD BLANCHE, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, Chhetry & Associates, P.C., New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director; Jennifer A. Bowen, Trial Attorney; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioners Mohammad Suhel Ahmed, Luthfa Begum, and their children, natives and citizens of Bangladesh, seek review of a January 23, 2024, decision of the BIA affirming a March 27, 2023, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ahmed’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Mohammad Suhel Ahmed, Nos. A241 887 326/327/328, A241 696 862 (B.I.A. Jan. 23, 2024), aff’g Nos. A241 887 326/327/328, A241 696 862 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Mar. 27, 2023). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 2  We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review adverse credibility determinations “under the substantial evidence standard.” Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility