United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 2, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-60174
Summary Calendar
ADEKUNLE ABOLAJI KAZEEM,
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 133 054
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Adekunle Abolaji Kazeem (Kazeem), a citizen of Nigeria,
petitions this court for review of the order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) adopting and affirming the immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of
removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and
his request for voluntary departure. Kazeem contends that he
provided sufficient evidence to sustain his burden of proof
regarding his application for withholding of removal.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-60174
-2-
This court reviews “the BIA’s factual conclusion that an alien
is not eligible for withholding of [removal] only to determine
whether it is supported by substantial evidence.” Zamora-Morel v.
I.N.S., 905 F.2d 833, 838 (5th Cir. 1990). The substantial
evidence standard requires that the decision be affirmed unless
“the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Carbajal-Gonzalez v.
I.N.S., 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996); see also I.N.S. v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992).
Kazeem fails to show that substantial evidence supports the
conclusion that he has suffered past persecution or will more than
likely suffer persecution if he is returned to Nigeria. See 8
C.F.R. § 208.16(b); Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 594 (5th Cir.
2006). Kazeem has abandoned the issues regarding the denial of his
applications for asylum, voluntary departure, and relief under the
CAT by failing to brief the issues in his petition for review. See
Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, Kazeem’s petition for review is DENIED.