
    Riaz Nazarali MOMIN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-60522.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided May 5, 2005.
    Burhan D. Nomani, Burhan Namonai & Associates, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Hipólito Acosta, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Riaz Nazarali Momin, a citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the immigration judge’s denial of Momin’s applications for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

To obtain withholding of removal under the INA, an applicant “must show that it is more likely than not that his life or freedom would be threatened by persecution” based on his political opinion, race, religion, nationality, or membership in a particular social group; under the CAT, that he is likely to be tortured. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906-07 (5th Cir.2002) (quotation omitted). We review for substantial evidence the determination that an alien is not entitled to withholding of removal and do not substitute our judgment of the witness’ credibility for that of the BIA or IJ. See id. at 905-06; Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.1994).

Momin contends the BIA erred by affirming the IJ’s determinations that he had not shown it was more likely than not he would be subjected to persecution or targeted for torture because of his religion (Muslim) if he returned to India. The record does not compel a finding that Mo-min met his burden to show he was entitled to withholding of removal under either the INA or the CAT. See Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 139-40 (5th Cir.2004). Mo-min has failed to show the BIA’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1997).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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