United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 10, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 03-60452 Clerk
Summary Calendar
DEEDAR ALI JAMAL; NABATH JAMAL,
Petitioners,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A70-921-600
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Deedar Ali Jamal and Nabath Jamal, citizens of Pakistan,
petition for review of an order from the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision to
deny their applications for asylum and cancellation of removal.
Although the Jamals were denied all forms of available relief, they
limit their challenge to the denial of their asylum claim.
Moreover, because Nabath Jamal’s asylum claim is dependent upon
Deedar Jamal’s asylum claim, it is only necessary to consider
Deedar’s eligibility for asylum.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-60452
-2-
We review legal conclusions de novo and findings of fact for
substantial evidence.1 We will not reverse a BIA decision unless
the evidence is “‘so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder
could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.’”2 The
Attorney General may grant asylum to refugees.3 A refugee is a
person who is outside of his or her country and is unable or
unwilling to return “because of persecution or a well-founded fear
of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion . . . .”4 To prove a well-founded fear of persecution, the
alien must show that a reasonable person in the same circumstances
would fear persecution if deported.5
Based on the IJ’s findings, the BIA concluded that Deedar did
not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of
persecution based on any of the statutorily-enumerated grounds.
After reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude that the
BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and that the
record does not compel a contrary conclusion.
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
1
Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001).
2
Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir. 1994)(quoting INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992)).
3
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1).
4
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).
5
Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 304 (5th Cir. 1997).