United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 5, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60623
Summary Calendar
MOHAMMAD BACHAL DETHO; TASNIM KAUSAR DETHO; WAJAHAT ALI DETHO,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
____________________
On Petition for Review from an Order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
_____________________
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The lead petitioner Mohammad Bachal Detho petitions for review
from the Board of Immigration Appeals’s order vacating the decision
of the Immigration Judge. For the reasons below, we deny the
petition.
I. Background
Detho is a citizen of Pakistan. Detho and his family
previously lived in Mirpurkhas, part of the Sindh province of
Pakistan. From a young age, Detho has been politically active in
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
the Pakistan People’s Party (“PPP”), which Detho has described as
“pro-national” and “pro-West.” Despite being a large Pakistani
political party, PPP, according to Detho, receives little support
in Mirpurkhas. He has been arrested three times in connection with
his political activities with the most recent arrest in 1979.
Following September 11, 2001, Detho was threatened and
attacked due to his support for the United States. The first
attack took place in his store in November 2001 and was carried out
by “pro-Islamic” group members. In December 2001, Detho was beaten
with a stick and suffered a face wound. His attackers warned that
this was “the tip of the iceberg” and threatened to “kill [his]
entire family.” He reported the incidents to authorities and was
advised to “be quiet . . . or something might happen to him.”
Additionally, Detho claims that (1) he received threatening
telephone calls including a threat of the potential rape of his
wife and daughters; (2) gunshots were fired at or near his house;
(3) stones were thrown at his house; and (4) his son, who is also
a member of PPP, was attacked by the same pro-Islamic groups.
Detho moved with his family to Punjab and has not encountered
further attacks or threats. He attributes the lack of attacks to
the fact that he has not voiced his political opinions.
On April 24, 2002, Detho was admitted to the United States
with his wife and son (collectively the “Petitioners”) as a
nonimmigrant with authorization to remain for a temporary period
not to exceed October 22, 2002. He remained longer than permitted.
2
At a hearing on January 16, 2003, Detho admitted the factual
allegations and conceded removeability before the Immigration Judge
(“IJ”). Thereafter, the Petitioners applied for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). At a hearing on the merits on April 8, 2003, the
IJ granted the Petitioners’ application for asylum.
On June 22, 2004, the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”)
issued an order reversing the IJ’s decision. The BIA also denied
the Petitioners’ applications for withholding of removal and
protection under CAT. On July 20, 2004, Detho timely filed the
instant petition for review.
II. Discussion
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because the BIA did not adopt the decision of the IJ, this
Court’s review is limited to the BIA’s decision. See Girma v. INS,
283 F.3d 664, 666 (5th Cir. 2002). We review legal conclusions de
novo and findings of fact for substantial evidence. See Lopez-
Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). “Under
substantial evidence review, we cannot reverse the BIA’s factual
determinations unless we decide not only that the evidence supports
a contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence compels it.”
Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal
quotation marks omitted). The alien bears the burden of proof to
show that the evidence is so compelling that a reasonable
3
factfinder could not reach a contrary conclusion. See id.
B. ASYLUM
Detho claims asylum on the basis of his political opinion. To
be eligible, he must show past persecution or a well-founded fear
of future persecution on this basis. See Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d
132, 138 (5th Cir. 2004); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2004).
a. Past Harm
The BIA considered the factual record, accepted Detho’s
testimony as credible, and ruled that the attacks on Detho, “even
taken cumulatively,” did not “rise to a level of prosecution as
contemplated by the Immigration and Nationality Act.”
Additionally, the BIA noted that with regard to the first attack,
he failed to specify where on his body he was injured or to what
extent.
Citing the two attacks against his person and threats made
against him and his family, Detho argues he has established past
persecution rising to the level necessary for a grant of asylum.
Persecution is the “infliction of suffering or harm, under
government sanction.” Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 583 (5th
Cir. 1996). Detho relies on Singh v. Ilchert, 69 F.3d 375 (9th
Cir. 1995), to support his claim that the BIA erred in reversing
the IJ’s grant of asylum. In Singh, the Ninth Circuit found that
the petitioner had suffered persecution because he had been
detained twice and “tortured” by police. Singh, 69 F.3d at 379.
4
Specifically, “the police interrogated and beat Singh for
two-and-a-half hours, until he lost consciousness. The police then
revived him with water and resumed the beatings. . . . [T]he
police arrested Singh again and imprisoned him for six days. On
each of the six days, the . . . police tightened a wide leather
belt around Singh’s torso until he lost consciousness.” Id. The
Singh attacks were more egregious than the incidents at issue here.
Moreover, Detho’s assault by a “pro-Islamic” political faction
stemmed from civil unrest, not persecution. The attacks were more
a product of competing political parties in Pakistan. See Mohammad
v. Ashcroft, 90 Fed. Appx. 746, 748 (5th Cir. 2004) (unpublished)
(finding that “skirmishes” with the PPP in which the alien was hit
with a shotgun and a piece of glass were not the result of
persecution but civil unrest in Pakistan). A Seventh Circuit case,
Meghani v. INS, also has facts similar to those in the instant
case. The alien in Meghani was a member of the PPP and was
attacked by members of a rival political party. 236 F.3d 843, 844
(7th Cir. 2001). In the attack, his wrist and shoulder were
broken. Id. The IJ accepted his account as credible but found
that the incident did not rise to the level of persecution. Id. at
847. The Seventh Circuit agreed that the “incident was civil
unrest between competing political factions not amounting to
persecution.” Id.
We find that Detho has failed to demonstrate that he has
5
suffered persecution in Pakistan. Detho’s incidents were less
severe than what took place Singh, which Detho relies on to
establish persecution. Instead, like Mohammad and Meghani, the
incidents reflect civil unrest in Pakistan due to rivalry among
political parties. Accordingly, the BIA did not err in finding
that the harm Detho suffered did not rise to the level of
persecution.
b. Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
“To establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, an
alien must demonstrate a subjective fear of persecution, and that
fear must be objectively reasonable.” Zhao, 404 F.3d at 307.
Detho, however, argues that he is not required to prove this well-
founded fear, because he met his burden of proving past persecution
in the initial trial before the IJ and therefore is entitled to the
regulatory presumption of fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1) (2004). His argument is without merit. As stated
above, the BIA vacated the IJ’s findings, and, therefore, the IJ’s
decision is not before this Court for review. See Girma, 283 F.3d
at 666.
Detho has failed to establish that his fear of future
persecution is objectively reasonable. Detho has not shown that he
will be singled out for persecution, see Zhao, 404 F.3d at 307, nor
has he met his burden of establishing that it would be unreasonable
for him to relocate within Pakistan. See 8 C.F.R. §
6
1208.13(b)(3)(I). While Detho and his family lived in Punjab, they
did not receive any threats and were not attacked. “[O]ngoing
family safety seems to be an even stronger indicator of
‘unreasonable’ fear when the feared persecutor has a national
influence,” like a rival political party. Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379
F.3d 182, 193 (5th Cir. 2004). In fact, although there are social,
cultural, and political differences between the Sindh and Punjab
provinces, Detho testified that in Punjab he has relatives and
there are many PPP supporters. In sum, the BIA did not err in
finding that Detho failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of
persecution.
III. Conclusion
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s judgment that Detho
has failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of
future persecution. Accordingly, Detho’s petition for review is
DENIED.
7