Momin v. Gonzales

Fifth Circuit

Momin v. Gonzales

179 F. App'x 207

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 3, 2006

Docket05-60177

StatusUnpublished

This text of 179 F. App'x 207 (Momin v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Momin v. Gonzales, 179 F. App'x 207 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Riaz Momin, a citizen of India, petitions this court for review of an order of the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirmed the denial of relief by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”).

Momin contends that the BIA and IJ erred by determining that he had not shown a well-founded fear of persecution or that it was more likely than not that he would be subjected to torture if he returned to India. However, because the record does not compel a finding that Mo-min was entitled to any of the relief he sought, Momin has failed to show that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir.1994).; Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906-07 (5th Cir.2002).

Momin’s petition for review therefore is DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Riaz Momin, a citizen of India, petitions this court for review of an order of the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirmed the denial of relief by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”).

Momin contends that the BIA and IJ erred by determining that he had not shown a well-founded fear of persecution or that it was more likely than not that he would be subjected to torture if he returned to India. However, because the record does not compel a finding that Mo-min was entitled to any of the relief he sought, Momin has failed to show that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir.1994).; Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906-07 (5th Cir.2002).

Momin’s petition for review therefore is DENIED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 F. App'x 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/momin-v-gonzales-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack