United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 22, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-60452
Summary Calendar
RAFIQ MAREDIA, also known as Rafiq Rajabali Maredia, also
known as Rafiq Rajamudeen Maredia,
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 987 794
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rafiq Maredia, a native and citizen of India, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
denying his application for withholding of removal and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We must defer to the
BIA’s decision unless substantial evidence compels a contrary
conclusion. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir.
2005). Where, as here, the BIA has adopted and affirmed the
decision of the immigration judge (IJ), this court has
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-60452
-2-
jurisdiction to review both decisions. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d
76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994).
First, Maredia seeks review of the determination that he is
not entitled to withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3)(A). He attempts to rely upon reports by the State
Department as evidence that violence against Muslims has occurred
in India since he departed the country. However, the IJ did not
accept the reports into evidence. Maredia offers nothing else in
support of his claim, other than conclusory assertions that
Muslims are subject to false arrest in India and that the Indian
government is willing to assist Hindu extremists in the
destruction of Muslim communities. He fails to cite any evidence
in the record to support his allegations. Accordingly, he fails
to show that the evidence is “so compelling [that his life or
freedom would be threatened if he returns to India] that no
reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Chun, 40 F.3d
at 78.
Next Maredia seeks review of his claim that he entitled to
relief under the CAT. He offers only conclusory, unsupported
assertions that the Indian government will instigate or condone
his torture if he returns to India. His claim is therefore
unavailing. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(c), 208.18(a)(1); Zhang, 432
F.3d at 344.
No. 06-60452
-3-
Finally, Maredia asserts that the IJ misstated Indian law
governing the arrest and detention of suspects. Assuming
arguendo that Maredia is correct, any error was harmless.
The petition for review is DENIED.