IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60310

Summary Calendar

AMISH ALAUDIN KHADIWAL,

Petitioner

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A200 941 298

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Amish Alaudin Khadiwal, a citizen and native of India, petitions for 

review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his 

appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) final order of removal denying his 

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 

Convention Against Torture (CAT). Khadiwal argues that he timely filed his 

asylum application. He maintains that he established past persecution based 

 

* 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

July 5, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60310 Document: 00513578205 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2016
No. 15-60310

2

upon political opinion and religion due to the evidence of his two encounters 

with, and one beating by, members of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). He 

asserts that this gives rise to a presumption that he has a well-founded fear of 

future persecution. According to Khadiwal, his testimony and documentary 

evidence further established that he had an objective, well-founded, and 

reasonable fear of future persecution from BJP members and other Hindu 

nationalists.

When considering a petition for review, we have the authority to review 

only the BIA’s decision, not the IJ’s decision, unless the IJ’s decision has some 

impact on the BIA’s decision. Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 

1997). In this case, we may review the IJ’s ruling as well as the BIA’s decision 

regarding whether Khadiwal had established past persecution or a wellfounded fear of future persecution because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s ruling in 

this respect. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002). We, 

however, cannot consider Khadiwal’s challenge to the IJ’s alternative ruling 

that his asylum application was untimely because the BIA did not consider it. 

See Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 584 n.3 (5th Cir. 2011).

We review questions of law de novo. Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 

(5th Cir. 2009). “Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, which 

requires only that the BIA’s decisions be supported by record evidence and be 

substantially reasonable.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted). 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.” Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th 

Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Among the 

findings of fact that we review for substantial evidence is the conclusion that 

an alien is not eligible for asylum. Id.

 Case: 15-60310 Document: 00513578205 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2016
No. 15-60310

3

According to Khadiwal’s testimony, he was threatened by BJP members

on one occasion and then threatened and beaten by BJP members on other 

occasion. While Khadiwal received a CT scan following the attack, the results 

of the CT scan were normal. The only medical treatments that Khadiwal 

required were a bandage to his nose and painkillers. This evidence was 

insufficient to compel a reasonable factfinder to determine that Khadiwal had 

suffered past persecution. See Mikhael, 115 F.3d at 304 & n.4. Accordingly, 

Khadiwal’s challenge to the BIA’s determination that he did not suffer past 

persecution is without merit. See id.

The BIA did not specifically rule that Khadiwal did not have a wellfounded fear of future persecution; instead it ruled that Khadiwal could 

internally relocate within India to avoid future persecution. An alien does not 

have a well-founded fear of persecution if he could avoid persecution by 

relocating to another part of his country “if under all the circumstances it 

would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.” Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 

F.3d 182, 194 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); 

see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3). Where, as here, an applicant for asylum “does not 

show past persecution” and “does not demonstrate that a national government 

is the persecutor, the applicant bears the burden of showing that the 

persecution is not geographically limited in such a way that relocation within 

the applicant’s country of origin would be unreasonable.” Lopez-Gomez v. 

Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2001); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i).

The BIA applied the correct legal standard, determining that internal 

relocation was reasonable for Khadiwal. The evidence presented by Khadiwal 

showed that he internally relocated, first to Mumbai and then to Delhi, for a 

total of over two years, without being harmed or threatened. While Khadiwal 

asserted that he faced no problems because he did not go outside often, he 

 Case: 15-60310 Document: 00513578205 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/05/2016
No. 15-60310

4

acknowledged that he had no issues with BJP members while in Mumbai and 

Delhi. Given these facts, the BIA’s determination that it was reasonable for 

Khadiwal to internally relocate to avoid persecution was supported by 

substantial evidence. See Lopez-Gomez, 263 F.3d at 446.

Khadiwal has not shown that the BIA’s denial of his request for asylum 

was not supported by substantial evidence. Because Khadiwal cannot 

demonstrate that he is eligible for asylum, he also cannot show that he meets

the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Efe, 293 F.3d at 906. He 

does not challenge the BIA’s denial of his request for relief under the CAT.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

 Case: 15-60310 Document: 00513578205 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/05/2016