Barlas v. Mukasey, No. 07-60909 (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. 07-60909 Summary Calendar December 10, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk NADIA GHANI BARLAS Petitioner v. MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A96 029 121 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Nadia Ghani Barlas, a native and citizen of Pakistan, has filed a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. Barlas argues that she has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her membership in a social group, asserting that she is the wife of an American citizen, the mother of two children who are American citizens, and the daughter of a Pakistani man with * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 07-60909 business ties to the United States. Barlas contends that the BIA s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. When the BIA affirms without opinion, as it did here, this court reviews the immigration judge s decision. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). The BIA s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 350 (5th Cir. 2002). Under the substantial evidence standard, this court will affirm the BIA s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). The record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the determination that Barlas lacked a well-founded fear of persecution on account of an enumerated ground for asylum relief. See Ontunez-Tursios, 303 F.3d at 349-50, 352-53. Barlas cannot meet the more demanding standard for withholding of removal given that she cannot satisfy the standard for asylum. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1138. 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.
