Filed: Sep. 16, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 16, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-60892 Summary Calendar HALEEMA MISTRY, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A70 898 011 - Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Haleema Mistry petitions for review of an order of th
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 16, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-60892 Summary Calendar HALEEMA MISTRY, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A70 898 011 - Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Haleema Mistry petitions for review of an order of the..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 16, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60892
Summary Calendar
HALEEMA MISTRY,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A70 898 011
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Haleema Mistry petitions for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirming the immigration
judge’s (IJ) decision to deny her application for asylum or
withholding of deportation. Mistry argues that she has established
past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution if
she were to return to India.
After reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude that
the decision is supported by substantial evidence and that the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-60892
-2-
evidence in the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See
Mikhael v. INS,
115 F.3d 299, 302-04, 306 (5th Cir. 1997); Abdel-
Masieh v. INS,
73 F.3d 579, 584 (5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the
petition for review is DENIED.