Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60893 Su m m ar y Cal endar

M O U SSA SA BI T- M AK I N E, a l s o kno w n a s M o us s a Sab i t - M ali ne P et i t i on er v. ERI C H HOLDER, J R, U S AT TORNEY GENERAL Res po nde nt Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B IAN o. A 88 811 435 B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , B A R K S D A L E , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * C on t en di n g h e est abli shed a w el l - f ou n ded fear of persecuti on if ret u rned t o Chad, M o us s a Sab i t - M ak i ne pe t i t i o ns t hi s c o ur tf o rr e vi e w o f

ade c i s i o n o f

t he B oard of

I m m i grati on A pp eal s ( B IA) t h at di sm i ssed hi s ap pea lfr om a n ord er of an I m m i gr ati on J udg e (I J) . The I J de ni e d Sa bit ’ s a ppli c at i o ns f o ra s yl um , United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Jul y 22, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60893

2 wi t hh o l d i ng o f r e m o v a l , a nd r e l i e f u nd e rthe Co nv e nt i o n Ag a i ns tTo r t ur e ( CAT) ando r de r e d hi s r e m o va lt o Chad o r , i n t he a l t e r nat ive , t o Cam e r o o n. S abiti s su bj ectto d eportat i on u n der 8 U . S . C . § 1227 ( a) ( 2) (A) (i i) , becau se he ha s t w o c on vi c t i o ns f o rc r i m e s o f

m o r alt ur pi t ude . N e ve r t he l e s s , o ur j u ri sdi ct i on i s not l i m i t ed by8 U . S . C . § 1252 ( a) ( 2) ( C ) : Sab i t ’ s c on vi ctio n s are m is d e m e a n o ro ffe n s e s n o t “o th e r w is e c o v e r e db y” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a )(2 )(A)(i). S ee 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(C ). S abitdoes not add ress t h e B IA ’ s r ej ect i on of hi s c l ai m s f

or w i t h h ol di n g of r e m o v a l a n dre lie f u n d e rth e C A T . A c c o r d in g ly , h e h a s w a iv e dth o s e is s u e s . S ee T h u ri v . A sh cr oft , 3 8 0 F .3 d7 8 8 , 7 9 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). C on cerni n g t h e rem ai n i n g cl ai m , ou r court w i l lu ph ol d t h e B IA ’ s den i alof asyl u m un l ess S abitshow s t h at it s act i on w as arbi t rary, capri ci ou s, or an abu se of dis c r e tio n . S ee Ju k i cv . I NS, 40 F . 3d 747 , 749 ( 5th C i r. 199 4) . Apetit i on er m u s t s h o w th a t h e p r e s e n te de v id e n c e “s o c o m p e llin gth a t n o re a s o n a b le fa c tfin d e rco u ldfa il to fin dth e re q u is ite fe a ro f p e r s e c u tio n ”. Id . ( quot i ng I NS v . El i as - Zac ar i as , 502 U . S . 478 , 484 ( 199 2) ) . Sab i t ’ s pet i t i on f or r evi ew does not p r e s e n t t h e re q u is ite d e ta ile dfa c ts e s ta b lis h in g h e h a s are a s o n a b le fe a rh e w ill be si n gl ed ou tforp ersec u t i on if h e i s r et u rnedt o C h ad ; t h eref ore, he h as fai l ed t o s h o w t h at th e den i alof asyl u m w as arbi t rary, capri ci ou s, or an abu se of d is c r e tio n . S e eF

a d d o u lv . I

NS , 37 F. 3d 185, 188 ( 5t h C i r . 1994) ; Ju k ic , 40 F. 3d a t 7 4 9 . DE NI ED .