Case Name: Tajuddin Pyarali SURANI; Laila Tajuddin Surani; Zohra Tajuddin Surani; Naila Surani, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-29
Citations: 109 F. App'x 704
Docket Number: No. 03-60914
Parties: Tajuddin Pyarali SURANI; Laila Tajuddin Surani; Zohra Tajuddin Surani; Naila Surani, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 704–705

Head Matter:
Tajuddin Pyarali SURANI; Laila Tajuddin Surani; Zohra Tajuddin Surani; Naila Surani, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-60914.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Sept. 29, 2004.
Terry W. Rombough, Arlington, TX, for Petitioners.
Andy J. Mao, Washington, DC, Anne M. Estrada, Dallas, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, Barry Joseph Pettinato, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
John Ashcroft, Washington, DC, pro se.
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tajuddin Pyarali Surani, Laila Tajuddin Surani, Zohra Tajuddin Surani, and Naila Surani petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge's (IJ's) decision to deny their applications for asylum, and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
The Suranis contend that the BIA's procedure of summarily affirming the IJ's decision without opinion violated their due process rights. This argument is without merit. Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832-33 (5th Cir.2003).
The Suranis also assert that the IJ overlooked their showing of past persecution and so erroneously held them to the "more likely than not" standard of 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(l)(iii). The three incidents outlined in the Suranis' testimony before the IJ do not constitute past persecution. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 304 & n. 4 (5th Cir.1997). Hence, the record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA's determination. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 195 (5th Cir.1996).
PETITION DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.