Sheeti v. Garland ( 2022 )

Case: 22-60010 Document: 00516558743 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-60010
Summary Calendar FILED
November 28, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce
Ahed Abdul Hadi Sheeti; Majed Mohd Al-Hatabeh; Clerk
Hamza Majed Al Hatabeh,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency Nos. A206 946 871, A206 946 872, A206 946 875
Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ahed Abdul Hadi Sheeti, Syrian native and citizen of Jordan, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denying her
application for asylum and rejecting her claim the Immigration Judge (IJ)
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-60010 Document: 00516558743 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/28/2022
No. 22-60010
denied her due-process. (Her husband and minor son are derivative
applicants on her application.)
In considering the BIA’s decision (and the IJ’s, to the extent it
influenced the BIA), legal questions are reviewed de novo; factual findings,
for substantial evidence. E.g., Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517–
18 (5th Cir. 2012). Under the substantial-evidence standard, petitioner must
demonstrate “the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder
could reach a contrary conclusion”. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134
(5th Cir. 2006).
Sheeti’s testimony in support of asylum revolves around economic
and criminal issues regarding knowledge of her former employer’s business
practices in Jordan. Because the record does not reflect direct political
activity (the claimed statutorily-protected ground) that casts “a political
shadow over an otherwise largely economic claim”, Sheeti fails to satisfy the
requisite persecution based on a political belief. Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft,
303 F.3d 341, 352 (5th Cir. 2002).
Further, Sheeti’s procedural due-process rights have not been
violated. She contends the IJ’s interpreter spoke a different Arabic dialect,
causing her confusion. She did not, however, object to the translator and
made no indications during her hearing that translation was an issue, nor does
she point to any part of the record as incorrectly translated. Accordingly, she
has made no showing of substantial prejudice that affected the proceedings.
E.g., Ogunfuye v. Holder, 610 F.3d 303, 306–07 (5th Cir. 2010) (due-process
violation requires establishing the violation affected outcome of
proceedings).
DENIED.
2