IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-60710

Summary Calendar

SHAKIL AKBARALI MAREDIA,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A088 725 848

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Shakil Akbarali Maredia, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review

of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his

application for withholding of removal. Maredia claims that he suffered

persecution in India because of religion and political opinion and that he will

face more persecution in India if forced to return to that country.

If the BIA has made no error of law, we will affirm its conclusion if it is

based on the evidence presented and is substantially reasonable. See Zhu v.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 19, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-60710 Document: 00511483212 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2011
No. 10-60710

Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593-94 (5th Cir. 2007). We will reverse only if the

evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Id.

An applicant for withholding of removal bears the burden of

demonstrating a clear probability that his life or freedom would be threatened

on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group,

or political opinion if he is returned to his country of origin. Chen v. Gonzales,

470 F.3d 1131, 1138 (5th Cir. 2006). A future threat to the applicant’s life or

freedom is presumed if he is found to have suffered persecution on account of a

protected ground. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 596 (5th Cir. 2007).

Under the well-founded fear requirement that applies to asylum

applications, the applicant must subjectively fear persecution, and such

subjective fear must be objectively reasonable. Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182,

189 (5th Cir. 2004). Although it has an objective component, the well-foundedfear standard’s focus is on the applicant’s subjective beliefs; however, the

standard does not require that those beliefs must more likely than not prove

true. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 (1987). On the other hand, the

standard for withholding of removal has no subjective-fear component, but its

objective component—the “likelihood of persecution”—is more stringent. Chen,

470 F.3d at 1138. Thus, if the evidence does not compel the conclusion that his

fear of persecution satisfies even “the lower objective standard for asylum,” it

necessarily follows that Mareida is ineligible for withholding of removal. Id.

Maredia, a Muslim, testified that he was twice harmed by Hindu

fundamentalists in India, in the summer of 2003 and in January 2004. In the

2003 incident, a Hindu fundamentalist group entered his cattle-feed store in a

Muslim area of Mumbai and broke things in what Maredia believed was an

effort to shut down the store because it was owned by a Muslim. The attack

lasted for 10 or 15 minutes. Maredia suffered no physical injuries, but he did

incur financial losses. In the January 2004 incident, Maredia was in a tea shop

with friends when about 20 Hindu fundamentalists arrived and confronted the

2

Case: 10-60710 Document: 00511483212 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2011
No. 10-60710

shopkeeper about having the shop open on a day of memorial observance of the

death of a Hindu leader. After an altercation began, Maredia fled the shop but

was struck in the back of the head while doing so. He received first-aid

treatment for the resulting minor injury. Maredia did not report either incident

to the police, whom he does not trust. Thereafter, Maredia received, once or

twice a month, telephoned death threats that “had something to do with” his

father’s political activities. Maredia entered the United States illegally about

a year later and learned of American asylum law thereafter. His parents remain

in India and have no intention of leaving.

The conclusion that Maredia failed to establish eligibility for withholding

of removal was correct. First, Maredia cannot rely on a presumption of future

persecution, because he failed to demonstrate past persecution. See Zhu, 493

F.3d at 596. Persecution “does not encompass all treatment that our society

regards as unfair, unjust or even unlawful or unconstitutional.” Majd v.

Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Threats of death do not, of themselves, constitute persecution. Mikhael v. INS,

115 F.3d 229, 304 & n.4 (5th Cir. 1997). Moreover, Maredia failed to show that

he had been “singled out” for any treatment that amounted to persecution.

Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994). “[A]n applicant’s fear of

persecution cannot be based solely on general violence and civil disorder.”

Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 190 (5th Cir. 2004). Although he testified

about his fear that the Hindu fundamentalist groups “can search and kill”

people, Maredia pointed to no evidence of future acts that would constitute

persecution of Maredia. The evidence does not compel the conclusion that

Maredia’s fear of persecution is well founded, and it consequently follows that

Maredia does not satisfy the more stringent clear-probability standard for

withholding of removal. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1138.

PETITION DENIED.

3

Case: 10-60710 Document: 00511483212 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/19/2011