Case Name: Jagdeep SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-15
Citations: 82 F. App'x 980
Docket Number: No. 02-61077
Parties: Jagdeep SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 82
Pages: 980–980

Head Matter:
Jagdeep SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-61077.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 15, 2003.
Martha E. Garza, Bellaire, TX, for Petitioner.
Efthimia Spiridoula Pilitsis, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Terri Jane Scadron, John Ashcroft, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, Houston, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
Before SMITH, DEMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jagdeep Singh petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge's decision to deny his application for asylum and withholding of removal under both the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Singh argues that the BIA erred in determining that he had not established past persecution based on his religion and political opinions, a well founded fear of future persecution, or that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if he were returned to India.
This court will uphold the factual findings that an alien is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal if those findings are supported by substantial evidence. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78-79 (5th Cir. 1994). The substantial evidence standard requires that the decision be based on the evidence presented and that the decision be substantially reasonable. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir.1996). The BIA's decision is supported by substantial evidence, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion as to either Singh's INA claims or his CAT claim. See id. Accordingly, Singh's petition for review is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.