Shafiq v. Ashcroft , 77 F. App'x 752 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 14, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 03-60019 Clerk
Summary Calendar
MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ; RIZWANA NAZ SHAFIQ,
Petitioners,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA Nos. A76 428 125
A76 428 126
--------------------
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Muhammad Shafiq and Rizwana Naz Shafiq petition for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming, without
opinion, the immigration judge’s decision denying their
applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. They
argue that the immigration judge erred by questioning Mr.
Shafiq’s credibility. As the Shafiqs have not shown they are
eligible for refugee status, any error in the immigration judge’s
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 03-60019
-2-
credibility assessment was harmless. See Iredia v. I.N.S., 981
F.2d 847, 849 (5th Cir.1993).
They also argue that their fear of being persecuted upon
removal is well-founded. However, Mr. Shafiq admitted that
nobody outside of the immediate region from which he hails has
any reason to want to persecute them. Their fear is therefore
not well-founded. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(C)(ii).
We have reviewed the record and the briefs and determine
that the immigration judge’s decision, which the Board affirmed,
is supported by substantial evidence and that the evidence in the
record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Efe v.
Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903-05 (5th Cir. 2002); Mikhael v. INS,
115 F.3d 299, 302-04 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the petition
for review is DENIED.