United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 18, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-60853
Summary Calendar
ZA CIN TUNG UKHAI,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A98 256 026
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Za Cin Tung Ukhai (Ukhai), a citizen and native of Myanmar,
petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of his
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Ukhai argues that his
credible testimony established that he has suffered past
persecution due to a death threat by a Myanmar Army captain for
reporting the abuse of Chin forced laborers. He also argues that
he has a well-founded fear of future persecution because he
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-60853
-2-
reasonably fears future encounters with the military captain or
others in authority who would harm him for reporting the abuse.
He contends that his past persecution and well-founded fear of
future persecution are based on a statutorily protected ground
because the abuse of Chin forced laborers is common in Myanmar
and individuals face serious consequences for reporting such
abuse.
Although Ukhai’s testimony was found credible, the BIA’s
determination that he has not suffered past persecution or has a
well-founded fear of future persecution based on a statutorily
protected ground is supported by substantial evidence. See
Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 187 n.4, 194 (5th Cir. 2004);
Gomez-Mejia v. I.N.S., 56 F.3d 700, 702 (5th Cir. 1995). Because
the BIA did not err in finding that Ukhai failed to make the
requisite showing for asylum, the BIA did not err in finding that
he could not meet the more stringent standard for proving
eligibility for withholding of removal. See Faddoul v. I.N.S.,
37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994).
Ukhai also challenges the BIA’s decision denying him relief
under the CAT. The BIA found that Ukhai failed to show that
Myanmar public officials would acquiesce in his torture. This
finding is also supported by substantial evidence. As the BIA
noted, evidence in the record demonstrated that the Myanmar
government took action to protect Ukhai from the military
captain, who was not “acting under governmental authority.” See
No. 06-60853
-3-
Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 354 (5th Cir. 2002);
8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.