Case Name: Shahbuddin Noor ALI, 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: 2006-10-20
Citations: 203 F. App'x 579
Docket Number: No. 05-60389
Parties: Shahbuddin Noor ALI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 579–580

Head Matter:
Shahbuddin Noor ALI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-60389
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 20, 2006.
Sarfraz Aftab Sharif, Sharif & Associates, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, John Clifford Cunningham, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Immigration Litigation, Karen Y. Phillips-Savoy, 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 DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Shahbuddin Noor AJi, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision affirming the Immi gration Judge's (IJ) denial of his applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Ali contends that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ's denial of withholding of removal and relief under the CAT because he established that he suffered past persecution and torture and it was more likely than not that he would be persecuted and tortured if he returned to Pakistan.
After careful review of the record and the briefs, this court concludes that the BIA's determination that Ali is not eligible for withholding of removal or relief under the CAT is supported by substantial evidence, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903, 906-07 (5th Cir.2002). Therefore, Ali'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.