Bukhari v. Mukasey, No. 07-60905 (5th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 07-60905 Summary Calendar December 10, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk SYED AMIR HAMZA BUKHARI Petitioner v. MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A79 008 196 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Syed Amir Hamza Bukhari, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge s (IJ) order denying his request for withholding of removal. When, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ s decision, we review the IJ s decision. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). Bukhari, who sought withholding of removal based on his political opinion, argues that the IJ s adverse credibility finding is not supported by the record. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 07-60905 Our review of the record establishes that the IJ s findings that Bukhari s testimony is incredible is supported by the record. For example, Bukhari testified that he was his district s General Secretary for a political party that opposed the government of Pakistan, that he organized and engaged in antigovernment demonstrations, and that he published anti-government pamphlets. None of those facts were mentioned in Bukhari s application for withholding of removal. Bukhari also testified that he was hospitalized after being jailed and beaten by police for three days because of his political activities. However, he did not produce any documentation of his hospitalization and treatment. Bukhari has not shown that the record compels this court to substitute its judgment for that of the IJ. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). The petition for review is DENIED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
