United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT May 5, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60522
Summary Calendar
RIAZ NAZARALI MOMIN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
A78 567 259
Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Riaz Nazarali Momin, a citizen of India, petitions for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the
immigration judge’s denial of Momin’s applications for withholding
of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the
Convention Against Torture (CAT).
To obtain withholding of removal under the INA, an applicant
“must show that it is more likely than not that his life or freedom
would be threatened by persecution” based on his political opinion,
race, religion, nationality, or membership in a particular social
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
group; under the CAT, that he is likely to be tortured. Efe v.
Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906-07 (5th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted).
We review for substantial evidence the determination that an alien
is not entitled to withholding of removal and do not substitute our
judgment of the witness’ credibility for that of the BIA or IJ.
See id. at 905-06; Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994).
Momin contends the BIA erred by affirming the IJ’s
determinations that he had not shown it was more likely than not he
would be subjected to persecution or targeted for torture because
of his religion (Muslim) if he returned to India. The record does
not compel a finding that Momin met his burden to show he was
entitled to withholding of removal under either the INA or the CAT.
See Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 139-40 (5th Cir. 2004). Momin
has failed to show the BIA’s decision was not supported by
substantial evidence. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th
Cir. 1997).
DENIED
2