M D Main Sattar NESSA, aka Mohammed Main Sattar Nessa, aka Mohammed Main Uddin, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent, 617 F. App'x 43

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner M D Main Sattar Nessa, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of a June 20, 2014, decision of the BIA affirming a June 28, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Sat-tar Nessa’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re M D Main Sattar Nessa, a.k.a. Mohammed Main Sattar Nessa, a.k.a. Mohammed Main Uddin, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 20, 2014), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig.Ct.N.Y. City June 28, 2013).

Wé assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

The regulations require IJs to exercise the Attorney General’s discretion to deny asylum to applicants who establish eligibility based solely on past persecution when the Government establishes a fundamental change in circumstances sufficient to rebut the presumption of well-founded fear. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). We review the agency’s factual findings regarding changed country conditions for substantial evidence. Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 114-115 (2d Cir.2010).

Here, the IJ reasonably found that although Sattar Nessa credibly established past persecution by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”) based on his membership in the Awami League (“AL”), entitling him to a presumption of future persecution, that presumption was rebutted by changed circumstances in Bangladesh. The IJ reasonably relied on human rights reports on Bangladesh issued by the U.S. Department of State, and we have held that such reports are “usually the best available source[s] of information on country conditions.” Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S.

Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 341 (2d Cir.2006) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395, 400 (2d Cir.2006). Although the 2007 State Department Report suggested that conditions in Bangladesh had worsened under BNP rule, the 2008 State Department Report provided that the AL had won the majority of parliamentary seats in the national election, which was “free and fair,” though “marked by isolated irregularities and sporadic violence.” The 2008 Report identified no instance of recent violence against AL members by the BNP.

The 2012 State Department Report on Bangladesh also provided substantial support for the IJ’s findings. It showed that the AL had remained in power since the election four years earlier. Although the 2012 Report did suggest that “politically motivated violence remained a.problem,” it reported few specific instances of such violence and described those instances as internal to the parties or linked to criminal activities.

Furthermore, the only specific example of politically motived violence discussed in the 2012 Report was committed by “members of the student wing of the ruling party,” who “beat and killed a passerby ... because they thought he belonged to the opposition party.” See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 153 (2d Cir.2008) (noting that “isolated reports” of persecution were insufficient to suggest that an alien would be singled out for persecution).

Contrary to Sattar Nessa’s argument, the IJ considered the particular circumstances of his case, and determined that no contrary or countervailing evidence was presented to undermine the findings of the State Department Reports. See Lecaj, 616 F.3d at 115-16. Therefore, the agency’s finding that the presumption that Sattar Nessa will be persecuted in Bangladesh was rebutted by changed country conditions is supported by substantial evidence. This finding formed an adequate basis to deny asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Id. at 119-20. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.