United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 20, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-60172
Summary Calendar
MINAJ MOMIN
Petitioner
v.
ALBERTO R GONZALES, US ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A95 453 793
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Minaj Momin, a native and citizen of India, petitions for
review of an order to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
affirming an order of the immigration judge (IJ) denying her
application for withholding of removal. Momin has waived any
challenge to the BIA’s denial of her asylum application as
untimely or her request for relief under the Convention Against
Torture. See Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th
Cir. 1986).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-60172
-2-
This court must defer to the BIA’s decision unless
substantial evidence compels a contrary conclusion. See INS v.
Elias-Zacarizs, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). Where, as here, the
BIA has adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision and also included
additional comments supporting its affirmance, this court has
jurisdiction to review both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions.
See, e.g., Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994).
Momin challenges the IJ’s determination that she is not
entitled to withholding of removal based on her Muslim religion.
She contends that she established her eligibility for withholding
of removal under the INA by adducing evidence that there was
frequent violence between Hindus and Muslims in the state of
Gujarat, where she is from; that her brother’s store in Gujarat
was burned down during such violence; that Hindus attack Muslim
women; and that a friend of her family’s was attacked by Hindus.
The record evidence in the instant case does not compel a
conclusion contrary to the determination that Momin was not
entitled to withholding of removal under the INA. See Roy v.
Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir. 2004). The IJ found that
Momin had failed to show government complicity in the ongoing
Hindu-Muslim violence or a probability that violence would be
directed towards Momin on account of her religion. The IJ
further noted that Momin’s family, both in Gujarat and Bombay,
had lived without trouble since the large riots in Gujarat in
February 2002. Momin does not contest the IJ’s suggestion that
No. 06-60172
-3-
she could return without fear to Bombay, if not Gujarat itself.
Momin offers only conclusory, unsupported assertions that she
will be persecuted if she returns to India. Her claim is
unavailing. See Roy, 389 F.3d at 138.
PETITION DENIED.