Anil Kumar v. Loretta Lynch
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-60372 Affirmed] Judge: TMR, Judge: ECP, Judge: JEG. Mandate issue date is 12/18/2017 [16-60372]
Date Filed: 10/25/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
October 25, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A087 947 849
Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Anil Kumar petitions this court for review of the order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the
Immigration Judge (IJ) denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and
Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief. Because the BIA relied upon the IJ’s
decision, this court reviews both the IJ’s decision and the order of the BIA. See
Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009).
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 10/25/2017
Kumar does not brief the BIA’s denial of CAT relief, and he has therefore
abandoned the issue. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.
2003). We lack jurisdiction to consider Kumar’s challenge to the dismissal of
his asylum application as time barred since his argument is based upon
factual, rather than legal, grounds. See Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594-96
(5th Cir. 2007).
We review the denial of withholding of removal under the substantial
evidence standard. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). We
“may not reverse the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels it.”
Wang, 596 F.3d at 536-37.
Kumar “must show that the evidence was so
compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Id. at 537.
To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant “must demonstrate a
clear probability of persecution upon return.” Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132,
138 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A showing
of past persecution gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that the applicant’s
life or freedom will be threatened in the future. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1)(i).
Kumar fails to show that the evidence compels a finding that he suffered past
persecution. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182,187-88 (5th Cir. 2004)
(holding that petitioner who had suffered verbal threats and had sustained
injury on one occasion failed to establish past persecution); Abdel-Masieh
v. United States INS, 73 F.3d 579, 583-84 (5th Cir. 1996) (upholding
BIA finding that two arrests, two detentions, and beatings not characterized
as severe did not rise to level of past persecution). As Kumar relies almost
exclusively on his evidence of past persecution to establish his entitlement to
withholding of removal, he fails to show that the BIA’s denial was not based
upon substantial evidence. See Efe, 293 F.3d at 906.
The petition for review is DENIED.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?