UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2123
ZAHEER AHMED BUTT,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-238-807)
Submitted: February 28, 2007 Decided: April 25, 2007
Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Iftekhar Ul Haq, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, James A. Frederick, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Zaheer Ahmed Butt, a native and citizen of Pakistan,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s
order denying Butt’s applications for withholding from removal and
withholding under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny
the petition for review.
“To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must
show that he faces a clear probability of persecution because of
his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13
(4th Cir. 2002). A “clear probability” means it is more likely
than not that the alien would be subject to persecution. INS v.
Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429-30 (1984). “The burden of proof is on
the applicant for withholding of removal . . . to establish that
his or her life or freedom would be threatened in the proposed
country of removal” on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(b) (2006). A showing of past threat to life or freedom
on such a ground creates a rebuttable presumption that the threat
would recur upon removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(I) (2006);
Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004).
A determination regarding eligibility for withholding of
removal is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on the
record considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
- 2 -
481 (1992). Factual findings by the Board or the immigration judge
“are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
(2000).
To make a prima facie case for relief under the CAT, “a
petitioner must offer specific showings that he or she will be
subject to ‘severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental’
by or at ‘the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of
a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.’”
Guzman v. INS, 327 F.3d 11, 17 (1st Cir. 2003) (quoting 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.18(a)(1) (2006)).
In Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 177 (4th Cir. 2005), we
noted that persecution is an extreme concept and may include
actions less severe than threats to life or freedom but must rise
above mere harassment. We cited Dandan v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 567,
573 (7th Cir. 2003), for the proposition that a three day detention
that included interrogations, beatings and deprivations of food and
water did not compel a finding of persecution. Li, 405 F.3d at
177. We observed that courts are reluctant to categorize
detentions unaccompanied by severe physical abuse or torture as
persecution. Id. Minor beatings and detentions lasting two to
three days do not amount to persecution. Id.
We find substantial evidence supports the Board’s
conclusion that Butt failed to establish past persecution. We
- 3 -
further find substantial evidence supports the finding that Butt
failed to establish a clear probability or likelihood of
persecution or torture if he returns to Pakistan.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 4 -