Singh, et al v. Ashcroft, et al

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
January 21, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-60396
Summary Calendar
PARVINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(A79-103-971)
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Parvinder Singh petitions for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s
decision to deny his application for asylum and withholding of
removal under both the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and
the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Singh claims the BIA erred
in determining that he had not established past persecution based
on his religion and political opinions or a well-founded fear of
future persecution. (He makes no contention under the CAT and has

-- 1 of 2 --

2
therefore waived that issue on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985
F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).)
This court will uphold the factual findings that an alien is
not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal if those findings
are supported by substantial evidence. Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d
299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). The substantial evidence standard
requires that the decision be based on the evidence presented and
that the decision be substantially reasonable. Carbajal-Gonzalez
v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). The BIA’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence, and the record does not compel
a contrary conclusion. See id.
DENIED

-- 2 of 2 --