Ramlianthangua v. Gonzales

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 7, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-60285
Summary Calendar
SOLOMON RAMLIANTHANGUA,
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 318 169
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Solomon Ramlianthangua, a native and citizen of Burma, has
petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision
denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ found
that, although Ramlianthangua had been subjected to
discrimination and harassment, the incidents he described did not
rise to the level of past persecution based on his race,
religion, or social group. Generally, we review the decision of

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 05-60285
-2-
the BIA and will consider the underlying decision of the IJ only
if it influenced the BIA’s determination. Mikhael v. INS, 115
F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). When, as in this case, the BIA in
essence adopted the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision.
Id.; see also Gomez-Mejia v. INS, 56 F.3d 700, 702 (5th Cir.
1995).
Ramlianthangua’s past experiences of forced labor on a
railroad project, beatings for missing school on Sundays, and
being placed in jail due to his family’s failure to pay a tax
amounted to discrimination that was no more egregious than other
types of mistreatment that this court has held not to be
persecution. See, e.g., Fleurinor v. INS, 585 F.2d 129, 132 (5th
Cir. 1978). “Neither discrimination nor harassment ordinarily
amounts to persecution . . . even if the conduct amounts to
‘morally reprehensible’ discrimination on the basis of race or
religion.” Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 188 (5th Cir.
2004). The IJ’s finding that Ramlianthangua had not suffered
past persecution was supported by substantial evidence.
Ramlianthangua also avers that the evidence compels a
finding that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution
because he established a pattern and practice of persecution of
similarly situated groups in Burma based on their Christianity,
Chin ethnicity, and their membership in the Chin National Front
(CNF). “To establish a well-founded fear of future persecution,
an alien must demonstrate a subjective fear of persecution, and

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 05-60285
-3-
that fear must be objectively reasonable.” Zhao v. Gonzales,
404 F.3d 295, 307 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
Assuming that Ramlianthangua had a subjective fear of
persecution, as his application and testimony indicate, he cannot
show that his fear was objectively reasonable. An alien may
prove the objectivity of his persecution claim by showing that he
would be singled out for persecution or, alternately, that there
is a “pattern or practice” of persecution of a group of persons
in which he is a member on account of an enumerated ground. Id.
at 307-08; 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(iii)(A) (2005).
According to Ramlianthangua, the Burmese government likely
is aware that he is Christian and Chin. The record does not show
that knowledge so disturbed the government that he suffered past
persecution. The only characteristic established on the record
that distinguishes Ramlianthangua from other Chin is his
membership in the CNF. Although Ramlianthangua testified that
the Burmese government was aware that he was a member of the CNF,
he did not present corroborating evidence of his membership in
the CNF or his participation in any other political activities,
or any evidence that he was persecuted on those grounds. See
Zhao, 404 F.3d at 309. He did not present any evidence that
after he fled from Burma, the police or military officers looked
for him. He also failed to show that the police or military
officers questioned or threatened his family or friends in an

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 05-60285
-4-
attempt to find him. He has not shown that the arrest of his
mother was specifically related to or in retaliation for his
fleeing from Burma, given that his mother’s arrest occurred
approximately three years after he left Burma. Substantial
evidence supports the IJ’s decision, and Ramlianthangua’s asylum
claim fails.
Because Ramlianthangua has not met the requirements
necessary to obtain asylum, he cannot meet the more onerous
standards required to obtain withholding of removal or relief
under the CAT. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir.
2002); Girma v. INS, 283 F.3d 664, 667 (5th Cir. 2002).
Therefore, Ramlianthangua’s claims for withholding of removal and
relief under the CAT also fail.
Ramlianthangua’s petition for review is DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --