Mohammad Waseem, et al v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-60771 Affirmed ] Judge: WED , Judge: JES , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 02/22/2011 [09-60771]

Mohammad Waseem, ase: v. Eric Holder,Document: 00511335537 C et al 09-60771 Jr.

Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-60771 S u m m a r y Calendar December 29, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

M O H A M M A D WASEEM; ERUM WASEEM; ZAID WASEEM; INDULLAH W ASEEM , 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. A099 668 992 B I A No. A099 668 993 B I A No. A099 668 994 B I A No. A099 668 995

B e fo r e DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* I n 2001, Mohammad Waseem, his wife, Erum Waseem, and his two minor c h ild r e n , Zaid and Indullah Waseem, all natives and citizens of Pakistan, en tered the United States as nonimmigrant visitors. The Waseems were ordered r e m o v e d after the Immigration Judge (IJ) found them ineligible for asylum,

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 09-60771 Document: 00511335537 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2010 No. 09-60771 w it h h o ld in g of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture. The B o a r d of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the decision. The Waseems subsequently filed a motion to reopen their immigration p r o c e e d in g s based on changed conditions in Pakistan. They alleged that new in fo r m a t io n reflected a dramatic increase in tension between the Sunni and S h i'it e Muslims in Pakistan and increased sectarian violence. The BIA denied t h e motion because the new evidence did not alter the Waseems' inability to e s t a b lis h their eligibility for immigration relief. The Waseems now seek review o f that decision. The BIA must deny a motion to reopen if it finds that the movant has not in t r o d u c e d previously unavailable, material evidence or if the movant has not " e s t a b lis h [e d ] a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought." Ogbemudia v. I.N.S., 988 F.2d 595, 599-600 (5th Cir. 1993). "We review the B I A 's denial of a motion to reopen proceedings under a highly deferential abuse o f discretion standard." Manzano-Garcia v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 462, 469 (5th C ir . 2005). We review the BIA's factual findings to determine if they are

s u p p o r t e d by substantial evidence. Mikhael v. I.N.S., 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1 9 9 7 ). T h e Waseems have not shown that the BIA abused its discretion by d e n y in g their motion to reopen because they failed to establish a prima facie c a s e for asylum or withholding of removal. Their evidence does not rebut the B I A 's finding that the Waseems are unable to establish a fear of harm from the P a k is t a n i government or groups that the government is unwilling or unable to c o n t r o l. They have presented no argument to rebut the BIA's finding that their fa ilu r e to show that they would be singled out for persecution prevented them fr o m establishing a reasonable fear of future persecution. To the extent the new e v id e n c e suggests that the level of violence between the Sunni and Shi'ite M u s l i m s in Pakistan has risen, that evidence does not conflict with the BIA's d e t e r m in a t io n that the Waseems would not be in any greater danger than the 2

Case: 09-60771 Document: 00511335537 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/29/2010 No. 09-60771 r e s t of the population of Pakistan. Finally, the Waseems' reliance on reports of s p o r a d ic violence against Muslims in Pakistan and on general statements that c o n flic t exists between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims there is not sufficient to c o m p e l the conclusion that a pattern or practice of government-sanctioned p e r s e c u t io n exists such that their fear of persecution upon return is reasonable. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(iii); Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1137-38 (5th C ir . 2006). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the Waseems' motion to r e o p e n . Accordingly, their petition for review is DENIED.

3