United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 27, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60035
Summary Calendar
ALIREZA ASSADI; MEHRNOOSH SABETI SANAT,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA Nos. A95-607-024 & A95-607-025
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alireza Assadi and his wife, Mehrnoosh Sabeti Sanat, both
citizens of Iran proceeding pro se, petition for review of the
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their
requests for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). They argue that the physical mistreatment
Assadi received during his 1986 and 1997 incarcerations in Iran
following his engagement in anti-government demonstrations
*
Pursuant to the 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
constitute past persecution based on his political opinion and
torture sufficient to render them eligible for the requested
relief. To the extent that the BIA adopted the findings and
opinion of the immigration judge (IJ),1 we review the IJ and BIA’s
decision to determine whether substantial evidence supports the
rulings.2 Under the substantial evidence standard of review, we
may not reverse a factual determination unless we find that the
evidence compels a contrary conclusion.3
Withholding of removal requires the petitioner to demonstrate
a “clear probability” of persecution if repatriated.4 If Assadi
establishes that he suffered past persecution on account of a
protected ground, it is presumed that his life or freedom would be
threatened in the future.5 Additionally Assadi need not provide
evidence that he would be singled out individually for future
1
The BIA dismissed in part and sustained in part, stating: “...we find
that the factual findings of the Immigration Judge are not clearly erroneous,
and, in conjunction with our observations, we adopt and affirm the immigration
Judge’s decision.” Reversing the IJ, the BIA granted petitioner’s request for
voluntary departure.
2
Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994); Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d
899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002); Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 353 (5th
Cir. 2002).
3
Chun, 40 F.3d at 78; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (stating that “findings
of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to
conclude to the contrary...”).
4
Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.16(b) (noting that an alien must show that “his life or freedom would be
threatened in the proposed country or removal on account of race, religion
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion”)).
5
8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1)(i).
2
persecution if he demonstrates both a pattern or practice of
persecution of a similarly situated class of people in Iran and his
inclusion in that group.6
The petitioners challenge as unsupported by the evidence the
BIA’s determination that Assadi did not need medical treatment upon
his release from prison and, therefore, that his physical
mistreatment while incarcerated did not rise to the level of past
persecution.7 We hold that the BIA could reasonablely draw the
inference from the testimony of both Assadi and Sanat that Assadi
did not seek medical care because he did not need such treatment.
Moreover, the petitioners’ argument that the Iranian government
engages in a pattern or practice of persecution against persons
similarly situated to Assadi is conclusory, devoid of reference to
specific evidence in the record.8
Assadi lived in Iran for the ten years in between his two
terms of imprisonment, both the consequence of a mass arrest. He
6
Id. at (b)(2)(ii).
7
The IJ credited Assadi’s testimony. He was detained for 45 and 40 days
during which time he was denied counsel, beaten, denied water, struck with an
electric baton, and one of his fingers was broken. He was released from the
second term of imprisonment only after singing a statement in which he agreed not
to participate in any more demonstrations and to pay a $13,000 fine.
8
Assadi argues that his Uncle’s death and that of his “mates”
demonstrates a probability of persecution, but he does not establish the cause
of death or any connection between his political views and that of his uncle.
Moreover, petitioners children and Assadi’s parents live in Iran; no evidence
suggests that they have been persecuted.
3
had no affiliation with the second protest, in which he
participated on impulse. He maintained employment and exercised
his freedom to travel outside of the country. The BIA’s
determination is supported by substantial evidence and the
petitioners, therefore, have not established that the evidence
compels a conclusion of eligibility for withholding of removal.
Similarly, the evidence does not compel a conclusion that
Assadi is entitled to relief under the CAT. Claims based on CAT
differ from those for withholding of removal because the
mistreatment need not involve one of the five impermissible
categories and since proof of torture, rather than persecution, is
required.9 In order to obtain relief, a petitioner must show that
it is “more likely than not” that he would be tortured if removed.10
Assuming that the physical abuse he suffered rises to the level of
torture, Assadi was incarcerated only as a result of his
participation in two isolated acts of civil disobedience and
otherwise lived without incident in the ten-year interim.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision, and we,
therefore, are not compelled to find that it is more likely than
not that Assadi would be tortured if removed.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
9
Efe, 293 F.3d at 906.
10
Ontunez-Tursios, 303 F.3d at 353 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2)).
4