Surani, et al v. Ashcroft

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
September 29, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-60914
Summary Calendar
TAJUDDIN PYARALI SURANI; LAILA TAJUDDIN SURANI; ZOHRA
TAJUDDIN SURANI; NAILA SURANI,
Petitioners,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA Nos. A76 775 586
A76 775 587
A76 775 588
A76 775 589
--------------------
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tajuddin Pyarali Surani, Laila Tajuddin Surani, Zohra
Tajuddin Surani, and Naila Surani petition for review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the
immigration judge’s (IJ’s) decision to deny their applications
for asylum, and withholding of removal under the Immigration and

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-60914
-2-
Nationality Act (INA), and withholding of removal under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT).
The Suranis contend that the BIA’s procedure of summarily
affirming the IJ’s decision without opinion violated their due
process rights. This argument is without merit. Soadjede v.
Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832-33 (5th Cir. 2003).
The Suranis also assert that the IJ overlooked their showing
of past persecution and so erroneously held them to the “more
likely than not” standard of 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1)(iii). The
three incidents outlined in the Suranis’ testimony before the IJ
do not constitute past persecution. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d
299, 304 & n.4 (5th Cir. 1997). Hence, the record does not
compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s determination.
See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 195 (5th Cir. 1996).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --