Case ID: f-appx_190/html/0396-02.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

Tajdin Sadru PITALYA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-60474.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided July 17, 2006.
    Riddhi Pankaj Desai, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    
      Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, Saul Greenstein, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Bradley R. O’Brien, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, 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.
    Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Tajdin Sadru Pitalya, 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. We will uphold findings that an alien is not eligible for withholding of removal 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, 594 (5th Cir.2006).

The evidence does not compel a conclusion that Pitalya suffered past persecution or that it is more likely than not that he will suffer persecution or torture if he is returned to India. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2)®, (ü); Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 304 & n. 4 (5th Cir.1997); Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir.2004). Pitalya’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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.