Case Name: Amin Mohamed Najarali MAREDIYA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-20
Citations: 223 F. App'x 355
Docket Number: No. 06-60353
Parties: Amin Mohamed Najarali MAREDIYA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 355–356

Head Matter:
Amin Mohamed Najarali MAREDIYA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-60353
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 20, 2007.
Burhan D. Nomani, Burhan Namonai & Associates, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Alberto R Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Amin Mohamed Najarali Marediya, a native and citizen of India, petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge's (IJ) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Marediya argues that he was entitled to withholding of removal and relief under the CAT because he has been persecuted by Hindus in India on account of his Islamic faith.
The record supports the BIA's conclusion that Marediya failed to establish that it was more likely than not that he would be persecuted due to his religious affiliation if he returned to India. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 303-04 (5th Cir. 1997). The BIA's decision affirming the denial of withholding of removal and relief under the CAT is supported by substantial evidence, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138-39 (5th Cir.2004).
The 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.