Case Name: Shahila Sabjaali MAREDIA, 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: 2006-02-23
Citations: 168 F. App'x 606
Docket Number: No. 04-60822
Parties: Shahila Sabjaali MAREDIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 168
Pages: 606–607

Head Matter:
Shahila Sabjaali MAREDIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-60822.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 23, 2006.
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, Michael Justin Friedman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Shahila Sabjaali Maredia, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals'(BIA's) summary affirmance of the denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In light of the BIA's summary affirmance, we review the immigration judge's decision. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1997).
Maredia fails to show that substantial evidence supports that she has an objective fear of being persecuted if she returns to India. She has not shown that she will be singled out for persecution if she returns or that there is a pattern of discrimination against Muslims that she cannot avoid by moving to another part of the country. See Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 306-07 (5th Cir.2005); 8 C.F.R. § 203.13(b) (2) (iii); Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 193-94 (5th Cir.2004).
Because Maredia did not make the showing required to establish eligibility for asylum, she cannot meet the more stringent standard necessary to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). Nor does the record compel a finding that Maredia met her burden of showing that more likely than not she would be tortured if she returned to India, such that she is entitled to relief under the CAT. See Bah v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir .2003).
Accordingly, Maredia'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.