IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-60262
Summary Calendar
NOORUDDINS S. SOHMANI,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A70 924 100
--------------------
January 29, 2003
Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Nooruddins S. Sohmani petitions this court for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from the denial of his application for asylum and ordering him to
voluntarily depart the United States. Sohmani argues that he is
entitled to asylum based on past persecution and his fear of future
persecution.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-60262
-2-
This court will uphold the BIA’s factual finding that an alien
is not eligible for asylum if it is supported by substantial
evidence. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002). The
substantial-evidence standard requires only that the BIA’s decision
be based on the evidence presented and that the decision be
substantially reasonable. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194,
197 (5th Cir. 1996).
The BIA’s finding that Sohmani failed to show that he suffered
from past persecution or that he had a well-founded fear of future
persecution was based on the evidence before it and was
substantially reasonable. The beating which Sohmani sustained
allegedly as a result of his political beliefs was isolated.
Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 584 (5th Cir. 1996). Moreover,
following the attack, Sohmani remained in Pakistan for six to seven
months without incident. The fact that following the beating,
Sohmani’s family relocated to another part of Pakistan without
incident and have remained in Pakistan without incident supports
the BIA’s finding that Sohmani failed to show a well-founded fear
of future persecution. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 445-
46 (5th Cir. 2001); Matter of A-E-M, 21 I&N Dec. 1157, 1160 (BIA
1998).
We consider Sohmani’s asylum claim also as a request for
withholding of deportation. Because Sohmani does not meet the
standard for asylum, he also does not meet the standard for
No. 02-60262
-3-
withholding of deportation. Efe, 293 F.3d at 906. Accordingly,
Sohmani’s petition for review is DENIED.