United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 23, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60993
Summary Calendar
RESHMA NOORJIBHAI MOMIN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A95 421 318
--------------------
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Reshma Noorjibhai Momin petitions for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration
judge’s decision to deny her application for asylum and
withholding of removal under both the Immigration and Nationality
Act (INA) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Momin argues
that the BIA erred in determining that she had not established
past persecution based on her religious affiliation, a well-
founded fear of future persecution, or that it was more likely
than not that she would be tortured if she were returned to
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-60993
-2-
India. She contends that she established her eligibility for
asylum and withholding of removal under both the INA and the CAT
by adducing evidence concerning conditions Muslims face in India
and with her testimony concerning difficulties faced by her
friends and family in India.
We will uphold the BIA’s factual findings that Momin is not
eligible for asylum or withholding of removal if those findings
are supported by substantial evidence. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d
76, 78-79 (5th Cir. 1994). The substantial evidence standard
requires that the decision be based on the evidence presented and
that the decision be substantially reasonable. Carbajal-Gonzalez
v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996).
The record evidence in the instant case shows that Momin
suffered no past persecution due to her faith, as no actual harm
befell her in India. The record evidence also fails to establish
a reasonable fear of future persecution based on her religion, as
she failed to submit evidence giving “specific, detailed facts
showing a good reason to fear that she will be singled out for
persecution.” See Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir.
1994). Her evidence established only that general conditions in
India are harsh and that her relatives were forced into giving
monetary support to the ruling political party. These facts are
insufficient to establish that one should receive asylum or
withholding of removal. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
482-83 (1992); Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 190 (5th Cir.
No. 04-60993
-3-
2004). The BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence,
and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion as to either
Momin’s INA claims or her CAT claim. Accordingly, Momin’s
petition for review is DENIED.