United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
December 23, 2005
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60605
Summary Calendar
MADHUMITA BARUA,
Petitioner,
v.
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A96 104 155
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Madhumita Barua (the Petitioner) is a native and citizen of Bangladesh. She seeks review of
a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).
Because the BIA summarily affirmed and adopted the immigration judge’s (IJ) opinion, we
review the IJ’s factual findings and legal conclusions.2 The IJ’s legal conclusions are reviewed de
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
2
Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 186 (5th Cir. 2004).
novo.3 The IJ’s factual findings will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.4 Substantial
evidence is lacking only if the evidence is “‘so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to
find’ the petitioner statutorily eligible for relief.”5
In this case, we cannot conclude that substantial evidence is lacking. To establish eligibility
for asylum, an alien must demonstrate that she suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear
of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion.6 The persecution must be inflicted under government sanction,7 including
persecution by groups the government is unable or unwilling to control.8 The record in this case does
not compel a finding that the past harm suffered by t he Petitioner was inflicted under government
sanction. With regard to future persecution, the record does not compel t he conclusion that
Petitioner could not avoid persecution by relocating to another part of Bangladesh or that it would
be unreasonable to expect her to do so.9
3
Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 305 (5th Cir. 1997).
4
Id. at 304; Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994).
5
Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 484 (1992)).
6
Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005).
7
Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 187 (5th Cir. 2004).
8
Adebisi v. INS, 952 F.2d 910, 914 (5th Cir. 1992).
9
See Eduard, 379 F.3d at 194.
-2-
The level of proof required for withholding of deportation is more stringent than for asylum.10
Because the Petitioner has failed to meet the standard for asylum, she has also failed to meet the
standard for withholding of removal.11 In addition, the Petitioner has not established that “‘more
likely than not . . . she would be tortured if removed’” to Bangladesh, as required for relief under the
CAT.12 For these reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.
10
Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 306 (5th Cir. 1997).
11
See Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 750 (5th Cir. 1994).
12
See Bah v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 348, 351-52 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.16(c)(2)).
-3-