Case ID: f-appx_77/html/0752-01.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

Muhammad SHAFIQ; Rizwana Naz Shafiq, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-60019.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 14, 2003.
    
      Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Muhammad Shafiq and Rizwana Naz Shafiq petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. They argue that the immigration judge erred by questioning Mr. Shafiq’s credibility. As the Shafiqs have not shown they are eligible for refugee status, any error in the immigration judge’s credibility assessment was harmless. See Iredia v. I.N.S., 981 F.2d 847, 849 (5th Cir.1993).

They also argue that their fear of being persecuted upon removal is well-founded. However, Mr. Shafiq admitted that nobody outside of the immediate region from which he hails has any reason to want to persecute them. Their fear is therefore not well-founded. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(C)(ii).

We have reviewed the record and the briefs and determine that the immigration judge’s decision, which the Board affirmed, is supported by substantial evidence and that the evidence in the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903-05 (5th Cir. 2002); Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302-04 (5th Cir.1997). Accordingly, the petition for review 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.