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 NASSER ALSAADI,

Petitioner,

VERSUS

ALBERTO R. GONZALES,

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

_________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals

m A97 196 374

______________________________

Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, 

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Intesar Alsaadi seeks review of a decision

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

denying her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition.

I.

Alsaadi is a native and citizen of the United

Arab Emirates(“UAE”) who entered the United States on September 29, 2000, as a nonimmigrant visitor with permission to remain

until March 28, 2001. She overstayed that

date. 

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published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.
2

On April 22, 2003, Alsaadi filed an application for asylum. The Department of Homeland Security filed a Notice To Appear on May

27, 2003, which initiated removal proceedings

against her. 

At a hearing before an immigration judge

(“IJ”) on September 23, 2003, Alsaadi admitted 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, the IJ denied Alsaadi’srequests.

Alsaadi appealed to the BIA, which on April

27, 2005, dismissed the appeal by adopting

and affirming the IJ’s decision in its entirety.

II.

The IJ concluded that Alsaadi had not filed

her asylum application within one year of her

arrival in the country and that no “extraordinary circumstances” existed that might have

excused her late filing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158-

(a)(2). The BIA expressly adopted this finding.

This Court lacks jurisdiction to review Alsaadi’s asylum claim, because the BIA found

her claim was time barred under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(a)(2)(B).1 The statute prohibits our review of the timeliness of Alsaadi’s claim and

her contention that her late filing should be excused by extraordinary circumstances.

III.

On the withholding of removal claim, we

review the findings of the IJ and the BIA for

substantial evidence. Zhang 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

(quoting Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 306

(5thCir. 2005)). The alien bears the burden of

proving the requisite compelling nature of the

evidence. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78

(5th Cir. 1994). To obtain withholding of removal, an applicant “must show that it is more

likely than not that his life or freedom would

be threatened by persecution” based on his political opinion, race, religion, nationality, or

membership in a particular social group. Efe

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

2002). 

Before the IJ, Alsaadi testified that she was

severely beaten by two of her brothersin 1998

in retaliation for shame brought on the family

as a result of a sexual affair with her half

brother. She believes that her decision to

leave the UAE brought further shame on her

family and that 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 social group. 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 Alsaadiwasineligible for withholding ofremoval

because the violence she fears is not the kind

of persecution contemplated by the law.

“Persecution within the context of the INS

regulations relates to persecution by authorities, supporters of the regime, the military, or

1

See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (“No court shall

have jurisdiction to review any determination ofthe

Attorney General under paragraph (2)”). See also

Zhu v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 521, 527 (5thCir. 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 nonreviewablebasis,

i.e., untimeliness, or a reviewable basis, i.e., the

merits of [the] asylum claim”).
3

the government unless political conditions [in

the alien’s country of origin] are so specially

oppressive that a wider range of claims of persecution must be given credence.” Adebisi v.

INS, 952 F.2d 910, 913-14 (5th Cir. 1992)

(internal quotations and citations omitted).

The persecution Alsaadifearsis a private matter and presumably would not be supported or

condoned by the government of the UAE.

When Alsaadiwas previously beaten by her

brothers, the authorities offered to prosecute

them, but she declined out of a desire to avoid

further dishonor to her family. Moreover, the

State Department’s 2001 report on human

rights conditions in the UAE indicates that

perpetrators of domestic violence are subject

to criminal sanctions and that the government

encourages the reporting of such incidents.

Accordingly,substantialevidence supportsthe

IJ’s conclusion that the violence feared by Alsaadi is not the kind of persecution recognized

by the immigration laws. 

Because Alsaadihas notshown thatshe will

more likely that not suffer persecution, the

determinations made by the IJ and BIA were

proper. The petition for review is DENIED.