Case ID: f-appx_187/html/0413-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rahibhai Sadruddin MOMIN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-60892.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided June 29, 2006.
    Burhan D. Nomani, Burhan Namonai & Associates, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, Luis Enrique Perez, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors, Office, New Orleans, LA, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
    Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Rahibhai Sadruddin Momin (Momin), a native and citizen of India, 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, relief under the Convention Against Torture Act (the CAT Act), and voluntary departure. We will uphold findings that an alien is not eligible for withholding of removal or protection under the CAT Act if the findings are supported by substantial evidence. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir.2002). Under the substantial evidence standard, reversal of the BIA’s decision is improper unless the alien shows that the evidence compels it. Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir.2006) (No. 05-60141).

Our review of the record reveals there is substantial evidence to support the IJ’s rulings that: (1) Momin did not suffer past persecution; and (2) he has not shown that it is more likely than not he will suffer persecution or torture if he is returned to India. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3); Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 187 n. 4, 188 (5th Cir.2004). Moreover, Momin has not shown that the evidence compels a reversal of the decision. Additionally, Momin does not challenge the denial of his request for voluntary departure. Accordingly, this issue is deemed abandoned. Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir.1986).

Momin’s petition for review is therefore DENIED. 
      
       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.