United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 23, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60133
Summary Calendar
MUMTAZUL HASAN; YASMIN HASAN;
JURRAT HASAN; RUTHBA HASAN,
Petitioners,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA Nos. A79 585 381
A70 585 382
A79 585 383
A70 585 384
--------------------
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mumtazul, Yasmin, Jurrat, and Ruthba Hasan (petitioners), are
natives of Bangladesh. They have filed a petition for review of
the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming
the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of their petitions for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Petitioners’ argument that the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s
decision deprived them of their right to a meaningful agency appeal
is without merit. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7) (2002); Soadjede v.
Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 831 (5th Cir. 2003).
The IJ’s determination that the petitioners failed to show
that Mumtazul suffered past persecution, as well as the fact that
conditions in Bangladesh have changed such that they no longer have
a well founded fear persecution, is supported by substantial
evidence. See Lopez De Jesus v. INS, 312 F.3d 155, 161 (5th Cir.
2002); Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 350-51 (5th Cir.
2002); Rojas v. INS, 937 F.2d 186, 190 n.1 (5th Cir. 1991); 8
C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1) (1997). Neither have the petitioners shown
that the IJ erred in denying their requests for withholding of
removal or for relief under the Convention Against Torture. See
Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994); Efe v. Ashcroft,
293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir. 2002). The petition for review of the
BIA affirmance of the IJ’s decision is DENIED.
2