Ali v. Ashcroft , 79 F. App'x 734 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 6, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60146
Summary Calendar
AGHA SAAD ALI,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A77 802 845
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Agha Saad Ali, a citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of
an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopting and
affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his
application for withholding of removal, filed pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3). Ali argues that the BIA erred by upholding the IJ’s
determination that he had failed to demonstrate that it was “more
likely than not” that his life or freedom would be threatened
because of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-60146
-2-
particular social group, or political opinion, if he were returned
to Pakistan.
When the BIA, as here, adopts the IJ’s decision, this court
reviews the IJ’s decision. Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th
Cir. 1997). The “substantial evidence” standard of review applies
to the IJ’s factual determinations, while questions of law are
reviewed de novo. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir.
2002). The substantial-evidence standard requires only that the
decision have some basis in fact in the record and does not require
this court to agree with the decision. Renteria-Gonzalez v. INS,
322 F.3d 804, 816 (5th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence support’s the IJ’s determination that Ali
was not subjected to past persecution in that neither of two 1999
incidents described by Ali was directly connected to his political
opinion. See Efe, 293 F.3d at 906; Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185,
188 (5th Cir. 1994); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1)(i); 8 U.S.C. §
1231(b)(3)(A).
Ali has abandoned any contention made under the United Nations
Convention Against Torture by failing to brief such claim in his
petition for review. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th
Cir. 1993); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9).
Ali’s petition for review is DENIED.