Summary Calendar ROZY RAJWANY v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-60353
Summary Calendar
ROZY RAJWANY
Petitioner
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Respondent
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
A70-812-229
--------------------
February 27, 2003
Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rozy Rajwany petitions this court for review of the order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from
the denial of her application for asylum and withholding of
deportation.
Upon review of Rajwany’s claims, we find substantial evidence
to support the BIA’s conclusion that Rajwany failed to establish a
nexus between the specific events of alleged persecution she
testified to and her status as a Bihari. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-60353
-2-
2 A “refugee” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) is a person
who is outside of her country and is unable or unwilling to
return “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of
persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership
in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002) (“The [BIA]’s factual conclusions are
reviewed for substantial evidence.”); Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185,
188 (5th Cir. 1994) (“[A]bsent dispositive error of law, we must
affirm the [BIA]’s determination that [the petitioner] was
ineligible for asylum or withholding of deportation if we find that
its decision was supported by substantial evidence in the
record.”); Castillo-Rodriguez v. INS, 929 F.2d 181, 184 (5th Cir.
1991) (“As long as the [BIA]’s conclusion is substantially
reasonable, we cannot reverse the finding simply because we
disagree with the [BIA]’s evaluation of the facts.”).
The BIA’s dismissal of Rajwany’s appeal based on its
determination that Rajwany did not establish either past
persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution in
Bangladesh on account of a ground enumerated under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(42)(A) is AFFIRMED.2 Because Rajwany does not meet the
standard for asylum, she also does not meet the standard for
withholding of deportation. Efe, 293 F.3d at 906. Accordingly, to
the extent her application is treated as a request for withholding
of deportation, such request (and all other requests not herein
granted) is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --