Case ID: f-appx_179/html/0207-01.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

Riaz MOMIN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-60177.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 3, 2006.
    Burhan D. Nomani, Burhan Nomani & Associates, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Houston, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Riaz Momin, a citizen of India, petitions this court for review of an order of the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirmed the denial of relief by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”).

Momin contends that the BIA and IJ erred by determining that he had not shown a well-founded fear of persecution or that it was more likely than not that he would be subjected to torture if he returned to India. However, because the record does not compel a finding that Mo-min was entitled to any of the relief he sought, Momin has failed to show that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir.1994).; Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906-07 (5th Cir.2002).

Momin’s petition for review therefore is 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.