Case Summary
**Case Summary: Roushdy Shaker Ebeid v. Mukasey**
**Docket Number:** 7853543
**Court:** United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
**Date:** The case was decided in 2008.
**Background:**
Roushdy Shaker Ebeid, an Egyptian national, petitioned for a review of the decision made by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) concerning his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Ebeid, who had entered the United States, claimed that he faced persecution in Egypt due to his political beliefs and affiliations.
**Facts:**
Ebeid asserted that he had been politically active in Egypt, opposing the government and advocating for democratic reforms. Following his departure from Egypt, he had received threats and faced violence from government supporters as a result of his activism. He applied for asylum, citing fear of future persecution upon returning to Egypt.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his application for asylum, concluding that Ebeid failed to demonstrate a credible fear of persecution or a well-founded fear of future harm. Ebeid appealed the IJ's decision to the BIA, which upheld the IJ’s ruling, citing insufficient evidence to support his claims.
**Issues:**
1. Did the BIA err in affirming the IJ's decision to deny Ebeid's application for asylum?
2. Did Ebeid present sufficient evidence of past persecution or fear of future persecution based on his political beliefs?
**Court's Analysis:**
The court reviewed the BIA's decision under the standard of whether the evidence presented was substantial enough to warrant a change in the outcome. It examined Ebeid's claims, focusing on the credibility of his testimony and whether the threats he reported were indicative of a real risk of persecution if he returned to Egypt.
In its analysis, the court noted the legal standards for asylum and withholding of removal, which require a clear showing of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The court found that the evidence presented by Ebeid did not sufficiently demonstrate a likelihood of persecution that met the established criteria.
**Conclusion:**
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the BIA, concluding that Roushdy Shaker Ebeid had not provided compelling evidence to support his claims of persecution based on his political beliefs. The court determined that the BIA's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that Ebeid's appeal did not warrant a remand or reversal of the IJ's decision.
**Outcome:** Affirmed. The petition for review was denied, and Ebeid's application for asylum was ultimately rejected.
This case underscores the burden of proof placed on applicants for asylum and the importance of credible evidence in establishing claims of persecution.