Shaukat Hayat, et al v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

Shaukat Hayat, et al v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Doc. 0

Case: 09-60712

Document: 00511207309

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/18/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-60712 S u m m a r y Calendar August 18, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

S H A U K A T HAYAT; BUSHRA BUTT; AMAN SHAUKAT; FARYAL SHAUKAT; M O H A M M A D YOUSUF, also known as Mohammed Yousuf Shaukat, P e titio n e rs v. E R I C H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, R espon dent

P e tit io n for Review of an Order of the B o a r d of Immigration Appeals B I A No. A098 225 905 B I A No. A098 225 906 B I A No. A098 225 907 B I A No. A098 225 908 B I A No. A098 225 909

B e fo r e BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* P e t itio n e r s Shaukat Hayat and Bushra Butt are natives and citizens of P a k is t a n ; their children, the other three petitioners, are natives of Qatar and c it iz e n s of Pakistan. They have petitioned for review of the Board of

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-60712

Document: 00511207309 Page: 2 No. 09-60712

Date Filed: 08/18/2010

I m m ig r a t io n Appeals' (BIA's) decision denying their applications for asylum and w it h h o ld in g of removal. All of the applications are based upon Shaukat Hayat's c la im . P etitio n ers contend that the Immigration Judge (IJ) erred in denying them r e lie f because they demonstrated past persecution and a well-founded fear of fu t u r e persecution as a result of their religious and political opinions and their m e m b e r s h ip in a particular social group. They also contend that they were d e n ie d due process during the removal hearing because there was an u n c o r r e c t e d mistranslation of Shaukat Hayat's testimony and because the IJ r e q u e s te d that Shaukat Hayat's wife, Bushra, remove her veil before she t e s t ifie d . T h e BIA's determination that petitioners are not entitled to relief from r e m o v a l is supported by substantial evidence. See Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1 1 3 1 , 1134 (5th Cir. 2006); Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005). Shaukat Hayat testified he: was subjected to harassment by members of the S ip a h -i-S a h a b a Pakistan (SSP), an illegal organization banned by the Pakistani g o v e r n m e n t ; received numerous threats urging him to join the SSP and to cease h is charitable work in Pakistan; and was beaten with sticks on one occasion. No e v id e n c e was offered to indicate what, if any, physical injuries resulted from that a tta ck . The only other evidence of a physical incident concerned a burial

c e r e m o n y : Shaukat Hayat was in attendance; and SSP members fired shots into t h e air to disrupt the ceremony, which they contended was against Islam. Hayat t e s t ifie d that he was not fired upon or injured, and there was no evidence that h e was the target of the SSP's attack. Both the IJ and the BIA concluded these incidents did not rise to the level o f past persecution of Shaukat Hayat. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate t h a t "the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a c o n t r a r y conclusion". Zhao, 404 F.3d at 306. Accordingly, we need not consider w h e t h e r the incidents were related to a protected ground. Further, Shaukat 2

Case: 09-60712

Document: 00511207309 Page: 3 No. 09-60712

Date Filed: 08/18/2010

H a y a t 's fear that he will be persecuted if he returns to Pakistan is not objectively r e a s o n a b le , and the evidence does not compel a finding to the contrary. Because S h a u k a t Hayat is not entitled to asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for w it h h o ld in g of removal, see Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). Further, because Shaukat Hayat's family members' claims are based upon his, t h e y also fail. As for petitioners' due process claims, they have failed to demonstrate that t h e y were substantially prejudiced by the alleged errors. See De Zavala v. A s h c r o ft, 385 F.3d 879, 883 (5th Cir. 2004). DENIED.

3