Karimi v. Gonzales, No. 05-60881 (5th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 29, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-60881 Summary Calendar PAIMAN KARIMI, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. -------------------Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A97 925 724 --------------------Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Paiman Karimi petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because the BIA both adopted the reasoning of the immigration judge (IJ) and added reasons of its own, we review both decisions. We do not have jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination of the IJ and the BIA that Karimi s asylum * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 05-60881 -2application was untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). The petition for review is thus dismissed as to the claims concerning asylum. We will uphold the conclusion that an alien is not eligible for withholding of removal if that conclusion is supported by substantial evidence. 1994). Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. The substantial evidence standard requires that the decision be based on the record evidence and that the decision be substantially reasonable. 197 (5th Cir. 1996). Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, Under this standard, we will affirm the decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Id. We need not address Karimi s argument concerning the adverse credibility decision, because the IJ and the BIA alternatively determined that Karimi s one encounter with Iranian authorities failed to establish past persecution. by substantial evidence. This decision is supported See, e.g., Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 584 (5th Cir. 1994); Fleurinor v. INS, 585 F.2d 129, 133-34 (5th Cir. 1978). Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Karimi has not shown that he will be singled out for persecution if he returns to Iran or that there is a pattern or practice of discrimination against Christians sufficient to establish future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1), (2); Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 307 (5th Cir. 2005). No. 05-60881 -3Karimi has not specifically addressed the finding that he is not entitled to relief under the CAT. waived. 1993). As such, the claim is See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. Because Karimi has not shown his entitlement to withholding of removal or relief under the CAT, he cannot show that counsel s alleged ineffectiveness affected the outcome of his case. 1994). See Miranda-Lores v. INS, 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir. Karimi s petition for review is denied in part. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
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.
