United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 14, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60916
Summary Calendar
DIDAR ALI MAKNOJIA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A76 448 423
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Didar Ali Maknojia, a native and citizen of Pakistan,
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 under
the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) and under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT).
We will uphold findings that an alien is not eligible for
withholding of removal if the findings are supported by substantial
evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Under this standard, reversal of the BIA’s decision is improper
unless the alien shows “not only that the evidence supports a
contrary conclusion, but [also] that the evidence compels it.”
Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 594 (5th Cir. 2006) (quotation
marks and citation omitted). Maknojia fails to show that
substantial evidence compels a finding that he has suffered past
persecution or will more than likely suffer persecution or torture
if he is returned to Pakistan. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b), (c)(2);
Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir. 2004); Bah v.
Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 348, 351-52 (5th Cir. 2003).
The BIA did not have to consider whether Maknojia was a
controlled substance offender given his removability on the
independent ground of being present in the United States without
being admitted or inspected. Nor was the denial of the motions for
continuance, so that Maknojia could await the outcome of the appeal
of the revocation of approval of the I-130 visa petition, an abuse
of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.29, 1240.6; Witter v. INS,
113 F.3d 549, 555 (5th Cir. 1997).
Maknojia’s petition for review is DENIED.
2