Case Name: Asmita NANASIA, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-30
Citations: 329 F. App'x 572
Docket Number: No. 08-60457
Parties: Asmita NANASIA, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before BENAVIDES, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 329
Pages: 572–572

Head Matter:
Asmita NANASIA, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-60457
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 30, 2009.
Mervyn M. Mosbacker, Jr., Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
John Beadle Holt, John Clifford Cunningham, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Sandra M. Heathman, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
Before BENAVIDES, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Asmita Nanasia, a native and citizen of India, petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) denying her application for withholding of removal. Nanasia argues that given her credible testimony and the documentary evidence depicting the persecution of Muslims by Hindu extremists, a reasonable person in her circumstance would fear persecution if returned to India.
We conclude from a review of the record that the BIA's determination is supported by substantial evidence, and the record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA's denial of withholding of removal. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 193 (5th Cir.2004); Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.1994); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b). Nanasia does not challenge the finding that her asylum application was untimely filed nor the finding that she is not entitled to protection under the Convention Against Torture. Thus, these claims are deemed abandoned. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003). Accordingly, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.