IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-60372

Summary Calendar

ANIL KUMAR,

Petitioner

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A087 947 849

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Anil Kumar petitions this court for review of the order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the 

Immigration Judge (IJ) denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and 

Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief. Because the BIA relied upon the IJ’s 

decision, this court reviews both the IJ’s decision and the order of the BIA. See 

Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 25, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-60372 Document: 00514210153 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2017
No. 16-60372

2

Kumar does not brief the BIA’s denial of CAT relief, and he has therefore 

abandoned the issue. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 

2003). We lack jurisdiction to consider Kumar’s challenge to the dismissal of 

his asylum application as time barred since his argument is based upon 

factual, rather than legal, grounds. See Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594-96 

(5th Cir. 2007). 

We review the denial of withholding of removal under the substantial 

evidence standard. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). We 

“may not reverse the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels it.” 

Wang, 596 F.3d at 536-37. Kumar “must show that the evidence was so 

compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Id. at 537.

To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant “must demonstrate a 

clear probability of persecution upon return.” Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 

138 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A showing 

of past persecution gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that the applicant’s 

life or freedom will be threatened in the future. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1)(i). 

Kumar fails to show that the evidence compels a finding that he suffered past 

persecution. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182,187-88 (5th Cir. 2004) 

(holding that petitioner who had suffered verbal threats and had sustained 

injury on one occasion failed to establish past persecution); Abdel-Masieh 

v. United States INS, 73 F.3d 579, 583-84 (5th Cir. 1996) (upholding 

BIA finding that two arrests, two detentions, and beatings not characterized 

as severe did not rise to level of past persecution). As Kumar relies almost 

exclusively on his evidence of past persecution to establish his entitlement to 

withholding of removal, he fails to show that the BIA’s denial was not based 

upon substantial evidence. See Efe, 293 F.3d at 906.

The petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 16-60372 Document: 00514210153 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2017