United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 28, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60751
Summary Calendar
ARIF SABZALI MAREDIA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A78 986 224
--------------------
Before JONES, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Arif Sabzali Maredia seeks review of the decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his request for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture. Maredia, a native and citizen of India, asserts
that he faces persecution and torture in India because he is
Muslim.
Under the substantial evidence standard of review, Maredia
must “set forth evidence so compelling that no reasonable
factfinder could fail to find the requisite elements.”
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-60751
-2-
Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 352 (5th Cir. 2002)
(internal quotation and citation omitted). Maredia has failed to
meet this standard.
Maredia’s claims are based primarily on anti-Muslim violence
in Maredia’s home state of Gujarat in February 2002 following the
burning of a train. He also points to general tension between
Hindus and Muslims and some reports of persecution and torture.
Although there was evidence that Gujarat officials either
ignored or actively participated in the violence following the
February 2002 incident, and although there is evidence of ongoing
tension between Muslims and Hindus, the evidence does not compel
the conclusion that Maredia suffered past persecution. Notably,
the immigration judge (IJ) found Maredia’s testimony regarding
alleged attempts by Hindu fundamentalists to locate him to lack
credibility, a determination that is entitled to great deference.
See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002).
As for a well-founded fear of future persecution, Maredia
did not show that he had been or was likely to be singled out
based on his Muslim beliefs, nor does the evidence compel the
conclusion that there is a pattern or practice of persecution
generally against Muslims sufficient to support an objectively
reasonable fear that Maredia would face such persecution. See
Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 307 (5th Cir. 2005). As Maredia
cannot meet the standard for asylum, he likewise cannot meet the
No. 04-60751
-3-
higher standard for withholding of removal. See Efe, 293 F.3d at
906.
Finally, with respect to his claims under the Convention
Against Torture, Maredia failed to demonstrate that it is more
likely than not that he would face torture as that term is
defined. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); Efe, 293 F.3d at 907.
For the foregoing reasons, we DENY the petition for review.