IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60712

Summary Calendar

SHAUKAT HAYAT; BUSHRA BUTT; AMAN SHAUKAT; FARYAL SHAUKAT;

MOHAMMAD YOUSUF, also known as Mohammed Yousuf Shaukat,

Petitioners

v.

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

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A098 225 905

BIA No. A098 225 906

BIA No. A098 225 907

BIA No. A098 225 908

BIA No. A098 225 909

Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Petitioners Shaukat Hayat and Bushra Butt are natives and citizens of

Pakistan; their children, the other three petitioners, are natives of Qatar and

citizens of Pakistan. They have petitioned for review of the Board of

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 18, 2010

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: 09-60712 Document: 00511207309 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2010
No. 09-60712

Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) decision denying their applications for asylum and

withholding of removal. All of the applications are based upon Shaukat Hayat’s

claim.

Petitioners contend that the Immigration Judge (IJ) erred in denying them

relief because they demonstrated past persecution and a well-founded fear of

future persecution as a result of their religious and political opinions and their

membership in a particular social group. They also contend that they were

denied due process during the removal hearing because there was an

uncorrected mistranslation of Shaukat Hayat’s testimony and because the IJ

requested that Shaukat Hayat’s wife, Bushra, remove her veil before she

testified.

The BIA’s determination that petitioners are not entitled to relief from

removal is supported by substantial evidence. See Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d

1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006); Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005).

Shaukat Hayat testified he: was subjected to harassment by members of the

Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), an illegal organization banned by the Pakistani

government; received numerous threats urging him to join the SSP and to cease

his charitable work in Pakistan; and was beaten with sticks on one occasion. No

evidence was offered to indicate what, if any, physical injuries resulted from that

attack. The only other evidence of a physical incident concerned a burial

ceremony: Shaukat Hayat was in attendance; and SSP members fired shots into

the air to disrupt the ceremony, which they contended was against Islam. Hayat

testified that he was not fired upon or injured, and there was no evidence that

he was the target of the SSP’s attack.

Both the IJ and the BIA concluded these incidents did not rise to the level

of past persecution of Shaukat Hayat. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate

that “the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a

contrary conclusion”. Zhao, 404 F.3d at 306. Accordingly, we need not consider

whether the incidents were related to a protected ground. Further, Shaukat

2

Case: 09-60712 Document: 00511207309 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2010
No. 09-60712

Hayat’s fear that he will be persecuted if he returns to Pakistan is not objectively

reasonable, and the evidence does not compel a finding to the contrary. Because

Shaukat Hayat is not entitled to asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for

withholding of removal, see Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).

Further, because Shaukat Hayat’s family members’ claims are based upon his,

they also fail.

As for petitioners’ due process claims, they have failed to demonstrate that

they were substantially prejudiced by the alleged errors. See De Zavala v.

Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 879, 883 (5th Cir. 2004).

DENIED.

3

Case: 09-60712 Document: 00511207309 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/18/2010