* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60816

Summary Calendar

KARIM FEROZ DATOO

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A78 986 039

Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Karim Feroz Datoo, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review

of an order ofthe Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration

Judge’s (IJ) denial of withholding of removal and request for relief under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT). Datoo argues that the BIA erred in finding

that he did not suffer past persecution or did not have a well-founded fear of

future persecution or torture because of his political opinion.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 11, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60816

2

The Secretary of Homeland Security or Attorney General is authorized, in

his discretion, to grant asylum to aliens who qualify as refugees. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(1). An alien is a refugee when he is outside of his country and “is

unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or

herself ofthe protection of,that country because of persecution or a well-founded

fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a

particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). The term

persecution requires “a showing by the alien that harm or suffering will be

inflicted upon [him] in order to punish [him] for possessing a belief or

characteristic a persecutor sought to overcome.” Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185,

188 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To be

eligible for withholding of removal, an alien must demonstrate a “clear

probability” of persecution upon return. Faddoul, 37 F.3d at 188. This standard

requires a higher objective likelihood of persecution than is required to establish

eligibility for asylum. Id. The CAT requires the alien to show that it is more

likely than not that he will suffer torture, as opposed to mere persecution, if

removed to his home country. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir. 2002).

Accordingly, if an alien does not warrant asylum on a particular basis, he cannot

meet the standards for withholding of removal and the CAT on that same basis.

In INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-83 (1992), the Court held that

forced recruitment by guerillas was not persecution based on political opinion

because the alien’s refusal to join the movement was not based on his political

opinion but on his fear of retaliation by the Government if he joined. This court,

in reliance on Elias-Zacarias, has held that persecution because of a refusal to

fight with a particular group is not persecution on account of political opinion.

See Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir. 1994) (“Jukic has failed to

demonstrate that he will be persecuted by either people based on his political

opinion or social group, ‘rather than because of his refusal to fight with them.’”).

Datoo must point to some evidence of the motive of the Muttahida Quami
No. 07-60816

3

Movement (MQM) in targeting him for recruitment. See Elias-Zacarias, 502

U.S. at 483. Nothing in the record suggests that the attempted forced

recruitment by the MQM was persecution on account of Datoo’s political opinion,

rather Datoo’s testimony shows that the MQM was trying to recruit all college

students and that the MQM’s actions arose from his refusal to join. The BIA did

not err in determining that the attempted forced recruitment did not constitute

persecution. See id. at 482-83.

Datoo’s argument that he established a well-founded fear of future

persecution if returned to Pakistan is refuted by the record. An alien may prove

the objectivity of his persecution claim by showing that he would be singled out

for persecution or, alternately, that there is a pattern or practice of persecution

of a group of persons in which he is a member on account of an enumerated

ground. Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 307 (5th Cir. 2005). As found by the IJ,

Datoo’s assertion that he was recruited aggressively by the MQM as a student

in 1996 does not establish that he was persecuted because of his political opinion

or that he has a well-founded fear of persecution or torture for his political

opinion in the future if he is returned to Pakistan. See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

at 482-83.

Datoo has not shown any error of law in the IJ’s and BIA’s conclusion that

he is not eligible for withholding of removal or relief under the CAT, and has not

shown that the decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

See Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2003).

Datoo has not argued on appeal that his claim for asylum was not time

barred. This issue is deemed abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,

224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir.

1986).

PETITION DENIED.