United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 19, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60270
Summary Calendar
NAFISA ALI,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Nafisa Ali, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions this
court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying her
application for withholding or removal and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). Ali argues that she demonstrated
past persecution as a result of her activities in a political
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
party. She also argues that the BIA failed to consider new
evidence on a motion to remand and that the evidence supports her
claim that she suffered persecution.
We conclude from a review of the record that the IJ’s and the
BIA’s determination is supported by substantial evidence, and the
record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the IJ’s and the
BIA’s denial of withholding of removal. See Roy v. Ashcroft, 389
F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir. 2004); Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906
(5th Cir. 2002); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b). Ali has not separately
briefed her claim for relief under the CAT, and that issue is
therefore abandoned. See Roy, 389 F.3d at 138; Rodriguez v. INS,
9 F.3d 408, 414 n.15 (5th Cir. 1993).
Ali (who has been represented by counsel throughout these
proceedings) did not file a motion to remand (or to reopen) before
the BIA as required by its rules; she merely included in her BIA
brief, as an additional argument in support of her contention that
she was entitled to withholding of removal, a reference to
assertedly changed circumstances in Pakistan and allegedly
supporting news articles and web page postings attached to that
brief, most of which well predated the hearing before the IJ and
none of which tended to undermine the IJ’s findings that she had
not suffered past persecution, that it was not likely that she
would be persecuted on return to Pakistan (as her only political
involvement had been minor and low level and she had not been
2
politically active in any way for over eight years when she was
only 20 years old); and that in any event she could avoid any such
claimed danger by relocating within Pakistan. All this material
was before the BIA and there is nothing to indicate it did not give
it such consideration as it deserved. Since there was no motion to
remand a separate ruling expressly directed thereto was not
required (or ever requested).
The petition for review is
DENIED.
3