Filed: Aug. 22, 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 August 22, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-61029 Summary Calendar DILBAG SINGH, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. - Petition for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA No. A73 409 491) - Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Petitioner Dilbag Singh petitions for review of the decision of the Boar
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 22, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-61029 Summary Calendar DILBAG SINGH, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. - Petition for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA No. A73 409 491) - Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Petitioner Dilbag Singh petitions for review of the decision of the Board..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-61029
Summary Calendar
DILBAG SINGH,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA No. A73 409 491)
--------------------
Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner Dilbag Singh petitions for review of the decision
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirming the
immigration judge’s decision to deny Singh’s application for asylum
and withholding of deportation. We have reviewed the record and
the briefs, and we conclude that the immigration judge’s conclusion
that Singh did not provide credible testimony and that Singh did
not establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of
future persecution is supported by substantial evidence. See
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS,
78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). The
petition for review is
DENIED.
2