Zandi v. INS

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 17, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-60399 Summary Calendar HASSAN ZANDI, Petitioner, versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. -------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals A29-574-152 -------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Hassan Zandi petitions this court for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. Zandi argues that he is entitled to asylum based on past persecution and fear of future persecution. 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. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 02-60399 -2- 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 conclusion that Zandi 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. Zandi has not shown that the present government of Iran would find his pro-monarchy sentiments and memberships to be a threat worthy of persecution. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We consider Zandi’s asylum claim also as a request for withholding of deportation. Because Zandi does not meet the standard for asylum, he also does not meet the standard for withholding of deportation. Efe, 293 F.3d at 906. Accordingly, Zandi’s petition for review is DENIED.