Pitalya v. Gonzales

Tajdin Sadru Pitalya, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We will uphold findings that an alien is not eligible for withholding of removal if the findings are supported by substantial evidence. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). Under the substantial evidence standard, reversal of the BIA’s decision is improper unless the alien shows that the evidence compels it. Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 594 (5th Cir. 2006).

The evidence does not compel a conclusion that Pitalya suffered past persecution or that it is more likely than not that he will suffer persecution or torture if he is returned to India. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2)®, (ü); Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 304 & n. 4 (5th Cir. 1997); Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir. 2004). Pitalya’s petition for review is therefore DENIED.