United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 17, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

_______________ 

### m 05-60450 Summary Calendar

_______________



### INTESAR 

### N ASSER 

### ALSAADI 

### , Petitioner,

VERSUS


### ALBERTO 

### R. G ONZALES 

### , U.S. ATTORNEY G ENERAL 

### , Respondent.

_________________________ Peti tion for Review of an Order of th e Board of Immigration Appeals 

### m A97 196 374

______________________________

Before S MITH , G ARZA , and P RADO , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM : *

Intesar Alsaadi seeks review of a decision of the Board of Im migration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her applications fo r asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition.

I. Alsaadi is a native and cit izen of the Unit ed Arab Em ir ates (“UAE”) who entered the Unit

ed States on Septem

ber 29, 2000, as a nonimmigrant visit or wit h permission to remain until March 28, 2001. She overstayed that date. * Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.2

On April 22, 20 03, Alsaadi filed an application fo r asylum. The Department of Homeland Security filed a Notice To Appear on May 27, 2003, which init iat ed removal proceedings against her.

At a hearing before an immigrat io n judge (“IJ”) on September 23, 2003, Alsaadi admit

ted that she had overstayed and was subject to removal. She sought relief by asylum or withholding of removal. After a hearing on January 26, 2004, th e IJ denied Alsaadi’s requests. Alsaadi appealed to th e BIA, which on April 27, 2005, dismissed th e ap peal by adopti ng and affirming t he IJ’s decision in its entirety.

II. The IJ concluded that Alsaadi had not filed her asylum application wit hin one year of her arri val in th e country and that no “extraordinary circumstances ” exi sted that m ight have excused her lat e filing. S ee 8 U.S.C. § 1158- (a)(2 ). The BIA expressly adopted this finding.
This Court lacks jurisdiction to review Alsaadi’s asylum claim, becaus e the BIA found her claim was ti

me barred under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). 1 The statute prohi bit s our review of th e t imeliness of Alsaadi’s claim and her contention that her lat e filing should be excused by extraordinary circumstances. III. On the wit hholding of removal claim, we review the findings of the IJ and the BIA for substantial evidence. Z

hang v. Gonzales , 432 F.3d 339, 343–44 (5th Cir. 2005). Under the substantial evidence standard, “reversal is improper unless we decide ‘not only that the evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but [also] that the evidence compels it.’” Id . at 344 (quoti ng Zhao v. Gonzales , 404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005)). The alien bears the burden of proving the requisite com pelling nature of the e vidence. S

ee Chun v. INS, 40 F.3 d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). To obtai n wit hholding of remo val, an applicant “must show that it is mo re likely than not that his life or freedom would be th reatened by persecution” based on his polit ical opi nio n, race, religion, nationalit y, or membership in a particular soci al group. Efe
v

. Ashcroft , 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir

. 2002).
Before the IJ, Alsaadi testi fied that she was severely beaten by two of her brothers in 1998 in retaliat io n fo r shame brought on the family
as a result of a sexual affai r with her half brother. She believes that her decision to leave the UAE brought further shame o n her family and t hat her return to that country would subject her to similar violence.
The IJ concluded that Alsaadi had not established her membership in a protected class
or soci al gro up. We do not need to address this ground, however, because there is an independent ground on which we conclude that the IJ was correct: The IJ found that Alsaadi was ineligible fo r wit hholding of removal because th e violence she fears is not the kind of persecution contemplated by the law.
“Persecution wit hin the context of the INS regulations relates to persecution by authoriti es, supporters of th e regime, the military, or 1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (“No court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General under paragraph (2)”). S ee also Zhu v. Ashcroft , 382 F.3d 521, 527 (5th Cir. 2005) (remanding to the BIA because its opinion left the
court with “no way of knowing whether the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision on a nonreviewable basis, i.e., unt imeliness, or a reviewable basis, i.e., the
mer its of [the] asylum claim”).3

th e government unless political conditions [in th e alien’s country of origin] are so speci ally oppressive that a wider range of claims of persecution must be given credence.” Adebisi v. INS, 952 F.2d 910, 913-14 (5th Ci r. 1992) ( int ernal quotations and cit ations om it ted)

. The persecution Alsaadi fears is a pri vate mat

ter and presumably would not be supported or condoned by the government of the UAE.
When Alsaadi was previously beaten by her brothers, th e authori

ti es of fered t o prosecute th em, but she declined out of a desire to avoid further dishonor to her family. Moreover, the State Departm ent’s 2001 report on human rights c ondi

tions in the UAE indicates that perpetrators of domestic vio lence are subject to criminal sanctions and that the government encourages th e reporti

ng of such incidents. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that th e vio lence feared by Alsaadi is not the kind of persecution recognized by t he immigrat io n laws. Because Alsaadi has not shown that she will
mo re likely that not suf fer persecution, the determ inat io ns made by th e IJ and BIA were proper. The peti

tion for review is DENIED.