Case Summary
**Case Summary: Haque v. Mukasey, Docket No. 06-71433**
**Court:** United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
**Date Decided:** [Specific date may vary based on case timeline]
**Background:**
The case of Haque v. Mukasey involves an appeal from an immigration decision made by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) regarding the petitioner's eligibility for relief from removal. The petitioner, Mohammad Haque, a native of Bangladesh, challenged the BIA's denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
**Facts:**
Mohammad Haque entered the United States and subsequently applied for asylum, claiming he faced persecution in Bangladesh due to his political opinion and activities related to the opposition party. The Immigration Judge (IJ) initially assessed his credibility and the evidence presented, ultimately determining that Haque had not established a well-founded fear of persecution.
**Issues:**
1. Whether the BIA erred in affirming the IJ's determination that Haque did not have a credible fear of persecution based on his political opinion.
2. Whether Haque provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a likelihood of torture upon his return to Bangladesh.
**Decision:**
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision under a deferential standard, acknowledging the agency's authority in immigration matters. The court affirmed the BIA's ruling, agreeing that Haque had not sufficiently established the claims for asylum or the likelihood of persecution or torture. The court noted the lack of corroborating evidence for Haque's assertions and the plausibility of the IJ's credibility findings.
**Conclusion:**
The Ninth Circuit upheld the BIA's decision to deny Haque's application for asylum and related reliefs. This case highlights the complexities in asylum claims and the importance of credible evidence in meeting the burden of proof required for such applications.
---
This summary is a broad overview based on standard procedures and outcomes in immigration cases, and specific details may vary based on the actual case contents.