
    Jarnail SINGH, Petitioner v. Alberto R GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-60652
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 7, 2007.
    Jarnail Singh, Houston, TX, pro se.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Christina Bechak Parascandola, U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources, Washington, DC, Trey Lund, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director, New Orleans, LA, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
    Alberto R. Gonzales, Washington, DC, pro se.
    
      Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jarnail Singh, a native and citizen of India, has filed a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (BIA) order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Singh argues that he was persecuted bylaw enforcement authorities in Punjab between 1993 and 1995 because he was a Sikh and member of the All-India Sikh Student Federation. Singh contends that the BIA’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence and that the BIA failed to consider whether humanitarian asylum relief should be granted.

“When, as here, the BIA affirms the immigration judge and relies on the reasons set forth in the immigration judge’s decision, this court reviews the decision of the immigration judge as well as the decision of the BIA.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir.2006). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Ozdemir v. INS, 46 F.3d 6, 7 (5th Cir.1994). Under the substantial evidence standard, this court will affirm the BIA’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Id. at 8.

The record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the immigration judge’s finding that Singh did not demonstrate past persecution on account of any of the five enumerated grounds for asylum relief set forth under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 304 & n. 4 (5th Cir.1997); Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 584 (5th Cir.1996); Ozdemir, 46 F.3d at 8. Because the BIA adopted and affirmed this finding, Singh’s argument that the BIA failed to consider humanitarian asylum relief is unavailing. See Shehu v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 435, 440-41 (5th Cir.2006). The record also does not compel a conclusion contrary to the determination that Singh lacked a well-founded fear of persecution on account of an enumerated ground for asylum relief. See Shehu, 443 F.3d at 437-40; Ozdemir, 46 F.3d at 8.

Singh cannot meet the more demanding standard for withholding of removal given that he cannot satisfy the standard for asylum. See Ozdemir, 46 F.3d at 8. Singh has also failed to satisfy the requirements for relief under the CAT because he has failed to show that he would more likely than not be tortured if he is returned to India. See Bah v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir.2003).

The petition for review is 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.
     