
    Badar SIDDIQI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-60434
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 12, 2006.
    Yvette Marie Mastín, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Elizabeth J. Stevens, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Steven Daniel Grimberg, Department of Justice Trial Attorney, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration <fe Naturalization Service District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship «fe Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
    Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Badar Siddiqi petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). As to his asylum application, Siddiqi seeks to challenge the BIA’s determination that his application was untimely under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). This court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that Siddiqi’s asylum application was untimely. See § 1158(a)(3). The petition for review is thus DISMISSED as to the asylum claim.

Siddiqi argues that the BIA erred in denying his application for withholding of removal. Siddiqi fails to demonstrate that the alleged isolated incidents of mistreatment or his status as a young, male Muhajir establish a “clear probability” that he would be persecuted upon his return to Pakistan. This court has held that similar allegations of mistreatment do not rise to the level of persecution. See, e.g., Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 584 (5th Cir.1996); Fleurinor v. INS, 585 F.2d 129, 132 (5th Cir.1978). Because the immigration judge’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and the evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion, the petition for review is DENIED. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir.1996); Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.1994).

Siddiqi does not brief the BIA’s denial of relief under the CAT. Accordingly, Siddiqi has waived the claim. See Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n. 15 (5th Cir.1993).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     