Momin v. Gonzales, No. 06-60172 (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 20, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-60172 Summary Calendar MINAJ MOMIN Petitioner v. ALBERTO R GONZALES, US ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent -------------------Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A95 453 793 -------------------Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Minaj Momin, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an order of the immigration judge (IJ) denying her application for withholding of removal. Momin has waived any challenge to the BIA s denial of her asylum application as untimely or her request for relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986). * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 06-60172 -2This court must defer to the BIA s decision unless substantial evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Elias-Zacarizs, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). See INS v. Where, as here, the BIA has adopted and affirmed the IJ s decision and also included additional comments supporting its affirmance, this court has jurisdiction to review both the BIA s and the IJ s decisions. See, e.g., Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). Momin challenges the IJ s determination that she is not entitled to withholding of removal based on her Muslim religion. She contends that she established her eligibility for withholding of removal under the INA by adducing evidence that there was frequent violence between Hindus and Muslims in the state of Gujarat, where she is from; that her brother s store in Gujarat was burned down during such violence; that Hindus attack Muslim women; and that a friend of her family s was attacked by Hindus. The record evidence in the instant case does not compel a conclusion contrary to the determination that Momin was not entitled to withholding of removal under the INA. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir. 2004). See Roy v. The IJ found that Momin had failed to show government complicity in the ongoing Hindu-Muslim violence or a probability that violence would be directed towards Momin on account of her religion. The IJ further noted that Momin s family, both in Gujarat and Bombay, had lived without trouble since the large riots in Gujarat in February 2002. Momin does not contest the IJ s suggestion that No. 06-60172 -3she could return without fear to Bombay, if not Gujarat itself. Momin offers only conclusory, unsupported assertions that she will be persecuted if she returns to India. unavailing. See Roy, 389 F.3d at 138. PETITION DENIED. Her claim is
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.
