Shafiq v. Ashcroft

Fifth Circuit

Shafiq v. Ashcroft

77 F. App'x 752

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 14, 2003

Docket03-60019

StatusUnpublished

This text of 77 F. App'x 752 (Shafiq v. Ashcroft) 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

Shafiq v. Ashcroft, 77 F. App'x 752 (5th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

Muhammad Shafiq and Rizwana Naz Shafiq petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. They argue that the immigration judge erred by questioning Mr. Shafiq’s credibility. As the Shafiqs have not shown they are eligible for refugee status, any error in the immigration judge’s credibility assessment was harmless. See Iredia v. I.N.S., 981 F.2d 847, 849 (5th Cir.1993).

They also argue that their fear of being persecuted upon removal is well-founded. However, Mr. Shafiq admitted that nobody outside of the immediate region from which he hails has any reason to want to persecute them. Their fear is therefore not well-founded. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(C)(ii).

We have reviewed the record and the briefs and determine that the immigration judge’s decision, which the Board affirmed, is supported by substantial evidence and that the evidence in the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903-05 (5th Cir. 2002); Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302-04 (5th Cir.1997). Accordingly, the petition for review 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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. *

Muhammad Shafiq and Rizwana Naz Shafiq petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. They argue that the immigration judge erred by questioning Mr. Shafiq’s credibility. As the Shafiqs have not shown they are eligible for refugee status, any error in the immigration judge’s credibility assessment was harmless. See Iredia v. I.N.S., 981 F.2d 847, 849 (5th Cir.1993).

They also argue that their fear of being persecuted upon removal is well-founded. However, Mr. Shafiq admitted that nobody outside of the immediate region from which he hails has any reason to want to persecute them. Their fear is therefore not well-founded. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(C)(ii).

We have reviewed the record and the briefs and determine that the immigration judge’s decision, which the Board affirmed, is supported by substantial evidence and that the evidence in the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903-05 (5th Cir. 2002); Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302-04 (5th Cir.1997). Accordingly, the petition for review 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)

77 F. App'x 752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shafiq-v-ashcroft-ca5-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack