Case ID: f-appx_114/html/0158-01.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

Elham HOUSHMANDI, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-60151.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Dec. 2, 2004.
    Yvette Marie Mastín, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, John Ashcroft, U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
    Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Elham Houshmandi petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA’s) decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Houshmandi contends that her asylum application was timely filed because she had one year from the date on which she converted to Christianity to file the application. We do not, however, have jurisdiction to review the immigration judge’s discretionary determination that Houshmandi’s asylum application was untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). The petition for review is thus DISMISSED as to the claims concerning asylum.

We hold that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Houshmandi is ineligible for withholding of removal and for protection under the Convention Against Torture; the record is ambiguous regarding whether her 1994 arrest and detention were on account of a protected ground, and evidence that Houshmandi “could” be persecuted because of her religious conversion or tortured if removed to Iran does not rise to the level of the “more likely than not” standard necessary to obtain the requested relief. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(b)(l)(iii) (2004), 208.16(c)(2) (2004); Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir.2002). 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.