Ahmet Sami Bilgin v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES On Petition for Review of an Order of the…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________________
NO. 05-1051
____________________
AHMET SAMI BILGIN,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
____________________
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Agency No. A78-573-559)
______________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 18, 2006
Before: ROTH, FUENTES and BECKER, Circuit Judges
(Filed January 30, 2006)
________________________
OPINION
________________________
BECKER, Circuit Judge.
Ahmet Sami Bilgin, a native and citizen of Turkey, petitions for review of an order

-- 1 of 3 --

2
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming without opinion an Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for political asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under Article III of the Convention Against Torture. We thus review the decision
of the IJ. See Berishaj v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 314, 322 (3d Cir. 2004).
The IJ found no evidence to support a finding that Bilgin was or would be targeted
in Turkey. The IJ also found that Bilgin’s own testimony confirmed that he did not wish
to return to Turkey so that he could avail himself of potential educational opportunities in
this country. We must uphold the agency’s findings of fact where they are “supported by
reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole,” Gao
v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266, 272 (3d Cir. 2002) (citation omitted), and must treat those
findings as conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach a
contrary conclusion. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Put differently, to reverse the BIA’s
decision, Bilgin must show that the evidence he presented was “so compelling that no
reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution,” INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 484 (1992). This standard requires the Court to affirm the
administrative decision unless the evidence not only supports the petitioner’s position, but
compels it “such that a reasonable fact finder would have to conclude that the requisite
fear of persecution existed.” Id. at 481 (emphasis added).
We conclude that Bilgin did not meet this burden. Because the parties are fully
familiar with the background facts and procedural history we need not set them forth, and

-- 2 of 3 --

Bilgin did not appeal to the BIA the IJ’s denial of his request for protection under the1
Convention Against Torture, hence it is waived. At all events, in view of our discussion
in the text, the claim could not succeed.
3
limit our discussion to our ratio decidendi. First, the incidents on which Bilgin relies are
insufficient to establish past persecution. He was not physically abused in any serious
degree, and his alleged detentions were relatively brief. Second, nothing in the record
compels the conclusion that Bilgin has a well-founded fear of future persecution. His
parents, younger brother and sisters have all remained in their homes without
consequence notwithstanding their own political activities. Third, Bilgin testified that it
was his desire to pursue further education that motivated his desire to remain in the
United States:
Q. Okay. So wouldn’t you be able to go back and work with your father
in his textile factory?
A. I could, but I want to go and study.
The petition for review will be denied.1

-- 3 of 3 --