Maqsood v. Gonzales, No. 06-60022 (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 December 15, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-60022 Summary Calendar ABDUL AZIZ MAQSOOD, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. -------------------Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A78 999 874 -------------------Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Abdul Aziz Maqsood, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming without opinion the immigration judge s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Maqsood argues that the BIA erroneously determined that he failed to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. Maqsood s claims of past persecution are based on his assertion that when he was 14-years old members of the MQM party * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 06-60022 -2fired at a car in which he was riding with his mother because his father was a member of a rival political party. He also claims that the to MQM made threatening telephone calls his house. Maqsood admitted at the hearing before the IJ that he had no proof that the MQM was involved in the attack on his car. Maqsood s Pakistan. also fears future persecution if returned to Maqsood admitted, however, that he and his family remained in Pakistan without suffering any harm for one-and-a-half years after the attack on his car. And, he admitted that his father returned to Pakistan to attend a wedding and complete a business deal without incident. We conclude from a review of the record that the BIA s decision is supported by substantial evidence, and the record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the IJ s findings that Maqsood failed to show past persecution on account of a protected ground or a well-founded fear of future persecution.1 The petition for review is DENIED. 1 See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 187 (5th Cir. 2004); Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 304 (5th Cir. 1997).
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.
