United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 3, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60850
Summary Calendar
ALLAUDDIN SULTAN FATTU
Petitioner
v.
ALBERTO R GONZALES, US ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A77 533 669
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Allauddin Sultan Fattu, a native and citizen of Pakistan,
petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) adopting and affirming, and dismissing Fattu’s
appeal of, the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his
application for withholding of removal, filed pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3).
Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision, the IJ’s decision
is the final agency determination for judicial review.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 04-60065
-2-
See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). We will
uphold the finding that an alien is not eligible for withholding
of removal if that finding is supported by substantial evidence.
See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). The substantial
evidence standard requires that the IJ’s decision be based on the
record evidence and that the decision be substantially
reasonable. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir.
1996). Under this standard, the IJ’s determination will be
affirmed unless the “evidence compels a contrary conclusion.”
Id.
At his hearing before the IJ, Fattu asserted that several
years after he left Pakistan, political opponents of his father
threw stones at the family home and business several times,
forcing his parents to leave the country as well. The IJ
determined that these alleged actions were a “far cry” from
“persecution.” After reviewing the record and the briefs, we
conclude that the IJ’s decision is supported by substantial
evidence and that the record evidence does not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Carbajal-Gonzalez, 78 F.3d at 197. Fattu’s
allegations do not even rise to the level of other types of
mistreatment that we have held not to qualify as persecution.
See, e.g., Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 584 (5th Cir. 1996);
Ozdemir v. INS, 46 F.3d 6, 7 (5th Cir. 1994).
The petition for review is DENIED.