
    Husam Al SHTAYA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-60444.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Aug. 5, 2005.
    
      Willie James Wheaton, Law Offices of Willie J. Wheaton, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Ari Nazarov, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Houston, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Husam A1 Shtaya appeals from the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to 1) reject on the merits Shtaya’s application for asylum and 2) uphold the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of Shtaya’s requests for withholding, of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

Shtaya argues that he established refugee status based on the imputed political belief that he is an Israeli sympathizer. He asserts that he faced past persecution given the evidence that militants shot at his home. Because of the mistaken assumption that he collaborated with the Israelis, Shtaya states that he cannot safely return to Israel, the West Bank, or any of the occupied territories. Shtaya maintains that the fact that his family has not been harmed is of no consequence because only he is wanted for his alleged collaboration with the Israelis.

Because Shtaya has failed to show that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against the BIA’s determination that he is not entitled to asylum, we must affirm that finding. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir.1996). As Shtaya has not made the showing required to obtain asylum, he has not met the more demanding standards for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir.2002).

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     