Alsaadi v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 17, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
In the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
_______________
m 05-60450
Summary Calendar
_______________
INTESAR NASSER ALSAADI,
Petitioner,
VERSUS
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
m A97 196 374
______________________________
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Intesar Alsaadi seeks review of a decision
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
denying her applications for asylum and with-
holding of removal. We deny the petition.
I.
Alsaadi is a native and citizen of the United
Arab Emirates (“UAE”) who entered the Unit-
ed States on September 29, 2000, as a non-
immigrant visitor with permission to remain
until March 28, 2001. She overstayed that
date.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has de-
termined that this opinion should not be published
and is not precedent except under the limited cir-
cumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
On April 22, 2003, Alsaadi filed an appli-
cation for asylum. The Department of Home-
land Security filed a Notice To Appear on May
27, 2003, which initiated removal proceedings
against her.
At a hearing before an immigration judge
(“IJ”) on September 23, 2003, Alsaadi admit-
ted that she had overstayed and was subject to
removal. She sought relief by asylum or with-
holding of removal. After a hearing on Janu-
ary 26, 2004, the IJ denied Alsaadi’s requests.
Alsaadi appealed to the BIA, which on April
27, 2005, dismissed the appeal by adopting
and affirming the IJ’s decision in its entirety.
II.
The IJ concluded that Alsaadi had not filed
her asylum application within one year of her
arrival in the country and that no “extraordi-
nary circumstances” existed that might have
excused her late filing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158-
(a)(2). The BIA expressly adopted this find-
ing.
This Court lacks jurisdiction to review Al-
saadi’s asylum claim, because the BIA found
her claim was time barred under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(B).1 The statute prohibits our re-
view of the timeliness of Alsaadi’s claim and
her contention that her late filing should be ex-
cused by extraordinary circumstances.
III.
On the withholding of removal claim, we
review the findings of the IJ and the BIA for
substantial evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432
F.3d 339, 343–44 (5th Cir. 2005). Under the
substantial evidence standard, “reversal is im-
proper unless we decide ‘not only that the evi-
dence supports a contrary conclusion, but [al-
so] that the evidence compels it.’” Id. at 344
(quoting Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 306
(5th Cir. 2005)). The alien bears the burden of
proving the requisite compelling nature of the
evidence. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78
(5th Cir. 1994). To obtain withholding of re-
moval, an applicant “must show that it is more
likely than not that his life or freedom would
be threatened by persecution” based on his po-
litical opinion, race, religion, nationality, or
membership in a particular social group. Efe
v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir.
2002).
Before the IJ, Alsaadi testified that she was
severely beaten by two of her brothers in 1998
in retaliation for shame brought on the family
as a result of a sexual affair with her half
brother. She believes that her decision to
leave the UAE brought further shame on her
family and that her return to that country
would subject her to similar violence.
The IJ concluded that Alsaadi had not es-
tablished her membership in a protected class
or social group. We do not need to address
this ground, however, because there is an
independent ground on which we conclude
that the IJ was correct: The IJ found that Al-
saadi was ineligible for withholding of removal
because the violence she fears is not the kind
of persecution contemplated by the law.
“Persecution within the context of the INS
regulations relates to persecution by authori-
ties, supporters of the regime, the military, or
1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (“No court shall
have jurisdiction to review any determination of the
Attorney General under paragraph (2)”). See also
Zhu v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 521, 527 (5th Cir. 2005)
(remanding to the BIA because its opinion left the
court with “no way of knowing whether the BIA
affirmed the IJ’s decision on a nonreviewable basis,
i.e., untimeliness, or a reviewable basis, i.e., the
merits of [the] asylum claim”).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the government unless political conditions [in
the alien’s country of origin] are so specially
oppressive that a wider range of claims of per-
secution must be given credence.” Adebisi v.
INS, 952 F.2d 910, 913-14 (5th Cir. 1992)
(internal quotations and citations omitted).
The persecution Alsaadi fears is a private mat-
ter and presumably would not be supported or
condoned by the government of the UAE.
When Alsaadi was previously beaten by her
brothers, the authorities offered to prosecute
them, but she declined out of a desire to avoid
further dishonor to her family. Moreover, the
State Department’s 2001 report on human
rights conditions in the UAE indicates that
perpetrators of domestic violence are subject
to criminal sanctions and that the government
encourages the reporting of such incidents.
Accordingly, substantialevidence supports the
IJ’s conclusion that the violence feared by Al-
saadi is not the kind of persecution recognized
by the immigration laws.
Because Alsaadi has not shown that she will
more likely that not suffer persecution, the
determinations made by the IJ and BIA were
proper. The petition for review is DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --