United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 17, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60474
Summary Calendar
TAJDIN SADRU PITALYA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A79 141 918
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tajdin Sadru Pitalya, a native and citizen of India,
petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ)
decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We
will uphold findings that an alien is not eligible for
withholding of removal if the findings are supported by
substantial evidence. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th
Cir. 2002). Under the substantial evidence standard, reversal of
the BIA’s decision is improper unless the alien shows that the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-60474
-2-
evidence compels it. Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 594 (5th
Cir. 2006).
The evidence does not compel a conclusion that Pitalya
suffered past persecution or that it is more likely than not that
he will suffer persecution or torture if he is returned to India.
See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2)(i), (ii); Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d
299, 304 & n.4 (5th Cir. 1997); Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132,
138 (5th Cir. 2004). Pitalya’s petition for review is therefore
DENIED.