United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 19, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-60553
Summary Calendar
KHALED MUSTAFA IZZAT HASHEM,,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A95 319 501
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Khaled Mustafa Izzat Hashem is a citizen and native of
Jordan who has petitioned for review of a decision by the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his request for withholding
of removal under § 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
By failing to brief the issue, Hashem has abandoned his claims
under the CAT. Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n.15 (5th Cir.
1993).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-60553
-2-
Although our review is normally limited to decisions of the
BIA, in this case we have reviewed the findings and conclusions
of the immigration judge (IJ) because the BIA denied relief based
on the IJ’s decision. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th
Cir. 2002).
Our review of the BIA’s decision is governed by the
substantial evidence standard, which requires that the BIA’s
decision be upheld unless the “evidence compels a contrary
conclusion.” Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th
Cir. 1996); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84
(1992).
Hashem argues that the IJ erred in finding that he was not a
credible witness and in holding that Hashem had failed to show
that he was likely to face persecution in Jordan due to his
membership in a particular social group and his religious
beliefs. Hashem does not challenge the IJ’s determination that
Hashem failed to show that there he could not live safely
anywhere in Jordan.
We are not convinced that we should substitute our judgment
for the IJ’s determination that Hashem’s testimony as to past
events in Jordan and the likelihood that he would face future
persecution was not credible. Garcia-Melendez v. Ashcroft,
351 F.3d 657, 662 (5th Cir. 2003). Hashem does not allege that
he would be subject to persecution due to any protected ground.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2); Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft,
No. 06-60553
-3-
303 F.3d 341, 352 (5th Cir. 2002). Hashem has waived any
challenge to the IJ’s finding that he failed to show that there
is no place in Jordan where he could safely live. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(b)(3)(i); Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n.15
(5th Cir. 1993).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.