Rajwany v. INS

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 28, 2003
• Docket: 02-60353
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 02-60353 -2-

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 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.”