Kumari v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60449 Document: 00516769174 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
May 31, 2023
No. 22-60449
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
____________
Jaivanti Kumari; Pooja Sharma; Sahil Sharma; Simran
Sharma,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency Nos. A205-362-600, A205-362-602,
A205-362-603, A205-362-604
______________________________
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Petitioners Jaivanti Kumari and Pooja Sharma, 1 natives and citizens of
Pakistan, request our review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
1
The Petitioners are a mother (Kumari), her two minor children, and her adult
daughter (Sharma). The minors are derivatives on Kumari’s application.
Case: 22-60449 Document: 00516769174 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2023
No. 22-60449
(BIA) dismissing their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of their
application for asylum and withholding of removal.
We review for substantial evidence and will not disturb the BIA’s
decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Zhang v.
Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Petitioners fail to present such evidence. The harms
alleged do not show past persecution. See Gjetani v. Barr, 968 F.3d 393, 397
(5th Cir. 2020). Petitioners also have not shown error in connection with the
BIA’s conclusions that they did not have an objectively reasonable fear of
future persecution and could avoid harm by relocating within Pakistan. See
Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 193 (5th Cir. 2003); Zhao v. Gonzales, 404
F.3d 295, 308 (5th Cir. 2005). Past persecution or a likelihood of future
persecution is an essential element of claims for asylum or withholding of
removal. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002); Jaco v. Garland,
24 F.4th 395, 402 (5th Cir. 2021). Petitioners fail to show that the evidence
compels a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s ruling on their eligibility for
asylum or withholding of removal. See Jaco, 24 F.4th at 402; Efe, 293 F.3d at
906; INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). We thus need not consider
their remaining arguments.
The petition for review is DENIED.
2