Shabudin v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 9, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60856
Summary Calendar
SHAFIQ SHABUDIN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(A77 340 270)
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Shafiq Shabudin, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision,
which affirmed, without an opinion, the immigration judge’s (IJ)
denial of Shabudin’s application for political asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
“Although this Court generally reviews decisions of the BIA,
not immigration judges, it may review an immigration judge’s
decision when ... the BIA affirms without additional explanation.”
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2003). “[T]his Court
must affirm the decision if there is no error of law and if
reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record,
considered as a whole, supports the decision’s factual findings.”
Id. Under this standard, “the alien must show that the evidence
[of another conclusion] is so compelling that no reasonable
factfinder could conclude against it”. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78
(5th Cir. 1994).
The Attorney General may exercise his discretion to grant
asylum to an alien who is a refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). A
refugee is an alien who is unwilling to return to his country
“because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on
account of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion”. 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(42)(A).
Based on inconsistencies in Shabudin’s testimony, his asylum
applications, and his sworn statements, the IJ found Shabudin not
credible. An IJ’s credibility findings are accorded “great
deference”. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 904 (5th Cir. 2002).
Shabudin contends: because his statements and testimony were
consistent with his general assertion of past, and feared future,
persecution in Pakistan, the IJ’s credibility findings were not
supported by substantial evidence; and any inconsistencies simply
resulted from his providing more details in his hearing testimony.
2
Contrary to Shabudin’s contentions, there was substantial
evidence to support the IJ’s credibility determinations. As the IJ
noted, there were multiple inconsistencies in Shabudin’s testimony
and written statements, many of which concerned matters central to
his claim of past persecution. Shabudin provided inconsistent
information regarding his arrest, the timing and number of threats
made against him, the treatment of his family members, and whether
or when he was shot by members of the Mahzir-Qomeei Movement (MQM).
Further, his assertions of continued persecution are questionable
in the light of his testimony that he stopped participating in the
Pakistan People’s Party after their office was raided in 1998.
Finally, contrary to Shabudin’s statements and testimony, evidence
in the Country Reports of Pakistan indicated MQM members were not
supported by the police, but rather had been targeted by the police
for arrests and killings. Accordingly, the IJ’s denial of
Shabudin’s asylum application was supported by substantial
evidence. See Moin, 335 F.3d at 418.
“To be eligible 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
omitted). Because of Shabudin’s failure to satisfy the more
lenient standard for asylum, he necessarily could not qualify for
withholding of removal. See Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595
(5th Cir. 2006).
3
The CAT requires an alien to show “it is more likely than not
that he ... would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of
removal. The testimony of the applicant, if credible, may be
sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without corroboration”.
Efe, 293 F.3d at 907 (quotation marks omitted). Because Shabudin
has not shown the IJ’s credibility determination should be
overturned, his CAT relief claim cannot succeed based on his
testimony alone. Id.PETITION DENIED
4