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 22-60449 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ca5 5th Cir. Kumari v. Garland 31 May 2023 Immigration Unpublished c0fe935afd64467178edc6808023f03f76244dfa
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals