Merchant, et al v. Gonzales

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
April 1, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-60414
Summary Calendar
SHAHEEN SALIM MERCHANT; SAFRAZ MERCHANT; SOEEN MERCHANT,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA Nos. A70 951 035
A70 951 036
A78 877 114
--------------------
Before JONES, BARKSDALE and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Shaheen Salim Merchant (“Merchant”) and her sons, Safraz
Merchant and Soeen Merchant, all natives and citizens of India,
petition for review of an order from the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
to deny Merchant’s application for asylum. Safraz Merchant and
Soeen Merchant concede that their immigration status is dependent
on whether Merchant is eligible for asylum. Merchant has waived
the denial of her applications for withholding of removal and

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-60414
-2-
relief under the Convention Against Torture by failing to argue
those issues. Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052
(5th Cir. 1986).
This court will uphold the BIA’s factual finding that an
alien is not eligible for asylum if the determination is
supported by substantial evidence. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d
899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002). “The substantial evidence standard
requires only that the Board’s conclusion be based upon the
evidence presented and be substantially reasonable.”
Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 350 (5th Cir. 2002)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Because the
BIA adopted the findings and conclusions of the IJ in this case,
we review the decision of the IJ. Efe, 293 F.3d at 903.
Merchant has failed to make the requisite showing that she
is unable or unwilling to return to India “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 . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); see
also Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --