
    Parvinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-60396.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 21, 2004.
    
      Thomas Perrill Adams, Law Office of Thomas P Adams, New Orleans, LA, for Petitioner.
    Alison Marie Igoe, US Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, US Department of Justice, Civil Division Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, John Ashcroft, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Caryl G Thompson, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Parvinder Singh petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s decision to deny his application for asylum and withholding of removal under both the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Singh claims the BIA erred in determining that he had not established past persecution based on his religion and political opinions or a well-founded fear of future persecution. (He makes no contention under the CAT and has therefore waived that issue on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).)

This court will uphold the factual findings that an alien is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal if those findings are supported by substantial evidence. Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1997). The substantial evidence standard requires that the decision be based on the evidence presented and that the decision be substantially reasonable. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir.1996). The BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See id.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     