IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60853

Summary Calendar

HASAN KASIM,

Petitioner

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A201 191 794

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hasan Kasim, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of 

the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which upheld the 

Immigration Judge’s (IJ) ruling that Kasim was ineligible for asylum, 

withholding of removal under Immigration & Nationality Act, and relief under 

the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 

 

* 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

November 18, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60853 Document: 00513765537 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/18/2016
No. 15-60853

2

As an initial matter, we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Kasim’s 

claim for asylum because his asylum application was untimely filed. Although

Kasim argues that he is eligible for an exception to the one-year asylum filing 

deadline based on changed or extraordinary circumstances, 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(a)(3) specifically bars this court from exercising jurisdiction over that

fact-intensive question. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2007); 

Nakimbugwe v. Gonzales, 475 F.3d 281, 284, 284 n.1 (5th Cir. 2007) (noting 

that the determination regarding the existence of extraordinary circumstances 

is a factual issue). Therefore, we dismiss this portion of the petition. 

This court reviews the BIA’s findings of fact for substantial evidence. 

Zhu, 493 F.3d at 594. Under the substantial-evidence test, “this court may not 

overturn the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels a contrary 

conclusion.” Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009). We

“will consider the underlying decision of the IJ only if it influenced the 

determination of the BIA.” Id.

An applicant for withholding of removal under the statute must 

demonstrate a clear probability that his life or freedom would be threatened 

on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b); Campos-Guardado v. 

INS, 809 F.2d 285, 290 (5th Cir. 1987). A “clear probability” is one that 

establishes that it is more likely than not that the applicant would be subjected 

to persecution for one of the protected grounds. Cardoza-Fonseca v. INS, 480 

U.S. 421, 430-31 (1987). An applicant can demonstrate a clear probability of 

future persecution where he establishes a pattern or practice of persecution of 

a group of similarly situated persons. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2)(i). An 

applicant for CAT relief must show that it is more likely than not that he would 

be tortured in the country designated for removal. Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 

F.3d 182, 191-92 (5th Cir. 2004). 

 Case: 15-60853 Document: 00513765537 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/18/2016
No. 15-60853

3

The evidence here does not compel a conclusion that Kasim is eligible for 

withholding of removal under the statute or CAT relief. Kasim only detailed 

two incidents of minor harm he suffered in adulthood, which were nine years 

apart, and a third incident in his childhood. None of these incidents involved 

any serious physical injury. The harm suffered in these incidents does not 

amount to past persecution. Eduard, 379 F.3d at 188 (holding that substantial 

evidence supported finding that the harm did not rise to the level of past 

persecution where the alien had experienced harassment, threats, and one 

episode of minor violence). There is insufficient evidence to compel a finding 

of a pattern or practice of persecution of similarly situated persons on account 

of a protected ground. The submitted evidence of individualized harm and 

recent country conditions do not compel a conclusion that future persecution 

or torture is more likely than not to occur. Kane v. Holder, 581 F.3d 231, 239 

(5th Cir. 2009) (requiring that the alien demonstrate a clear probability of 

persecution by specific, detailed facts). Given the deferential review we 

employ, we deny this portion of the petition.

DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART. 

 Case: 15-60853 Document: 00513765537 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/18/2016