161 F.3d 7
5th Cir.
1998

KHAN AHMED ARIF, Petitioner, versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 96-60862

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

September 30, 1998

Summary Calendar; BIA No. A91-541-399

Before DAVIS, DUHE‘, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

PER CURIAM:*

Khan Ahmed Arif seeks a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA“) October 22, 1996, denial of his application for asylum. Arif asserts that the BIA made numerous errors in evaluating the evidence that he submitted. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs, find no error in the BIA‘s evaluation of the evidence, and find that the BIA‘s finding that Arif is not eligible for asylum is supported by substantial evidence. See Gomez-Mejia v. I.N.S., 56 F.3d 700, 702 (5th Cir. 1995). Arif has not met his burden of showing “that the evidence he presented [is] so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.‘” Jukic v. I.N.S., 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir. 1994).

Arif has raised for the first time in the petition for review that the INS violated his rights before, during, and after the deportation proceedings.

To the extent that we have jurisdiction to review these claims, we have determined that the claims lack merit. Arif also asserts for the first time in his petition for review that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at his bond hearings and that counsel failed to appeal the bond hearing. The record is not adequately developed to allow us to review these claims in the first instance. Arif‘s petition for review is DENIED.

Arif‘s motion to supplement the record is DENIED.

PETITION FOR REVIEWED DENIED; MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD DENIED.

Notes

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.