United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 16, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60142
Summary Calendar
BARKAT PIRMUHAMMAD,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A75 223 158
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Barkat Pirmuhammad petitions this court to review the decision
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying relief on his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). As to his asylum
application, Pirmuhammad seeks to challenge the BIA’s determination
that his application was untimely under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2).
This court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 04-60142
-2-
that Pirmuhammad’s asylum application was untimely. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3).
Pirmuhammad argues that the BIA erred in denying his
application for withholding of removal. He contends that the
several death threats he received while living in the Sindh
province of Pakistan constitute past persecution. “[P]ersecution
requires more than a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or
intimidation, unaccompanied by any physical punishment, infliction
of harm, or significant deprivation of liberty.” Eduard v.
Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 187 n.4 (5th Cir. 2004) (quotation
omitted). According to his testimony, Pirmuhammad was never
physically abused, detained, or interrogated by police. He has
failed to show that he was subject to past persecution. See id.;
Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 583-84 (5th Cir. 1996).
Because Pirmuhammad failed to establish past persecution, he
must show that it is more likely than not that he will suffer
persecution in the future. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2). Relying
on documentary evidence, he argues that members of the MQM party
face continuing danger in Pakistan.
Pirmuhammad testified that he was able to avoid threats and
persecution from 1994 to 1998 by moving to small villages in the
Sindh province. The documentary evidence shows that MQM party
members such as Pirmuhammad can safely relocate to other provinces.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that
Pirmuhammad has not met his burden to establish an entitlement to
No. 04-60142
-3-
withholding of removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906
(5th Cir. 2002); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2), (3)(i).
Pirmuhammad does not brief the BIA’s denial of relief under
the CAT. Accordingly, he has waived the claim. See Rodriguez v.
INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n.15 (5th Cir. 1993).
Pirmuhammad’s petition for review is DENIED.