2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
12-10-2004 

# S ho eb v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-4359

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" S hoeb v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 87. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/871 

### The Hon orable Frank J. Magill, Senio r Judge, U. S . Court of Appeals fo r the Eighth Circuit, sitt

ing by designat ion. NOT PRE CEDENT IAL
UN ITED STA TES CO UR T O F A PPE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-4359
MOHAMM AD SHOEB,

Petitioner
v. JO HN AS HC RO FT , ATTOR NEY G ENERA L OF THE U NITED STATES, Respondent

Petition for Revi ew of an Order of the Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals ( No. A70-580-231)
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a) Date: November 30, 2004 Befor e: RENDELL, ALDISERT and MAGILL 1 , Circu it Judges

(Fil ed: December 10, 2004)

OPINI ON OF THE COURT ALD ISERT, Circuit

Judge Petitioner Mohammad Shoeb, a nati ve and cit izen of Paki stan, seeks re view of a2

finalorder of r emoval iss ued by t he Board of Immigration Appeals ( “BIA”) on October 24, 2003 . The ord er affirmed the Imm igration Judge ’s (“IJ’s”) decision to de ny Mr. Shoeb’s reque st for

asy lum and withhol ding of removal . We have juri sdict ion to r eview the BIA’s orde r under 8 U.S. C. § 1252. We will de ny t he peti tion. I. Because we write only for the parties, who are famili ar with t he facts , procedural hist oryand content ions pre sented, we will not r ecit e them except as necess ary

to the discuss ion. II. For a petitioner t o establish t hat he is a refugee eligible for asylum, he must demonstrat e that

he is unabl e or unwill ing to r eturn t o his count ryof origi n “because of pe rse cu tio n o r a w ell -f

ou nd ed fe ar of

pe rse cu tio n o n a cc ou nt of ra ce , re lig io n, n ati on ali ty, memb er sh ip ina p arti cu lar s oc ia l g ro up, orpol itic al opini on. ” 8 U. S. C. § 11 01( a) (4 2) (A) (200 0). A petition er for asylum b ears th e bur den o f sup porting his claim throu gh cr edible testim ony. Gao v. Ashcroft , 299 F .3d 26 6, 272 (3d C ir. 2002 ). An adve rse cre dibility findin g by the IJ shou ld be s upp orted b y specific , coge nt reas ons for the d isbelief in petit ion er’s t estim ony. Bal as ubramanr im v. INS , 143 F.3d 157, 161 -162 (3d Cir. 1998 ). To q ualify fo r with hold ing o f rem oval, a petition er mu st estab lish that a clear p roba bility exist s that

his l ife or freedom would be threat ened in Paki stan on acc ount of rac e, relig ion , natio nalit y, mem ber ship in a p artic ular soc ial gr oup or p olitic al op inio n. Dia v.Ashcroft , 353 F.3d 228, 233 n. 1 (3d C ir. 2003).

We conclud e that the BIA had a su bstantial basis to conc lude that Sh oeb’s test imony di d not meet hi s burden of pr oof because i t was vague and meager. Petitioner said v ery little abou t his alleg ed po litical activities with the P akistan Peo ple’s P arty (“PP P”), m aking only a ge neral c laim th at he u rged peop le to vo te for th e party. H e did not expla in why t

his l evel of activit

y would caus e the pol ice t o arres t him i n 1991. Petiti oner did not provide any affidavit s or other documents to show that he was a member of the PPP or was ever arrest ed. He clai ms that hi s hands were broke n in an atta ckby Musl im Lea gue suppo rt er s i n 19 87, but he pr es en te d no pr oof

of th at cl ai m. He fail ed to expl ain why, if he had been s ubject ed to a pol iti cal attack i n 1987, he di d not apply fo r asylum wh en he visited th e U nited S tates in 1 998 . Sho eb ad mitted that his trip to the Unit ed State s in 1991 was not hi s fir st, that he had visi ted in 1988 and had retur ned to Pakis tan without

clai ming asy lum. He als o admitt ed that he had waited t

wo years after arriv ing in th e U nited Sta tes in 199 1 be for e ap plying for asylum in 1 993
. III. We have considered a ll arguments rai sed bythe parties and conc lude that no further discuss ion is necessar

y. We conclude that

substantial e vidence suppor ted the BIA ’s or der . Ac cor din gly, w e w ill de ny the petit ion for rev iew
.