Mahnaz Arshad, a/k/a Mohammed Zubair v. INS, 181 F.3d 538, 541 4th Cir. 1999 . A determination regarding eligibility for…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1985
MAHNAZ ARSHAD, a/k/a Mohammed Zubair,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the
United States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A77-977-268)
Submitted: January 31, 2006 Decided: February 16, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert A. Remes, CARLINER & REMES, P.C., Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Christopher
J. Gramiccioni, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Mahnaz Arshad, a native and citizen of Pakistan,
petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”)
order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision
denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We
deny the petition for review.
Arshad bore the burden of demonstrating his eligibility
for asylum. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2005); Gonahasa v. INS, 181
F.3d 538, 541 (4th Cir. 1999). A determination regarding
eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal is conclusive if
supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a
whole. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the
contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2000). We will reverse the
Board “only if ‘the evidence presented by the petitioner was so
compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the
requisite fear of persecution.’” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325
n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Huaman-Cornelio, 979 F.2d at 999
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
With respect to Arshad’s claim that he was persecuted by
Sunni Muslims, we find substantial evidence supports the Board’s
findings that he failed to show the Pakistani government was
unwilling and unable to control the extremist groups.

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --