United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 15, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-60022
Summary Calendar
ABDUL AZIZ MAQSOOD,
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 999 874
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Abdul Aziz Maqsood, a native and citizen of Pakistan,
petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming without opinion the immigration
judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum and withholding
of removal. Maqsood argues that the BIA erroneously determined
that he failed to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of
future persecution.
Maqsood’s claims of past persecution are based on his
assertion that when he was 14-years old members of the MQM party
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-60022
-2-
fired at a car in which he was riding with his mother because his
father was a member of a rival political party. He also claims
that the MQM made threatening telephone calls to his house.
Maqsood admitted at the hearing before the IJ that he had no proof
that the MQM was involved in the attack on his car.
Maqsood’s also fears future persecution if returned to
Pakistan. Maqsood admitted, however, that he and his family
remained in Pakistan without suffering any harm for one-and-a-half
years after the attack on his car. And, he admitted that his
father returned to Pakistan to attend a wedding and complete a
business deal without incident.
We conclude from a review of the record that the BIA’s
decision is supported by substantial evidence, and the record does
not compel a conclusion contrary to the IJ’s findings that Maqsood
failed to show past persecution on account of a protected ground or
a well-founded fear of future persecution.1
The petition for review is DENIED.
1
See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 187 (5th Cir. 2004);
Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 304 (5th Cir. 1997).