IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-60743
Summary Calendar
JAIME A. MORENO,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(A75 347 107)
May 22, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner Jaime Moreno seeks review of the denial of his
application for asylum and withholding of deportation. An
immigration judge denied his application, and the Board of
Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal. We deny Moreno’s
petition.
Our review of the Attorney General’s denial of Moreno’s
application is sharply circumscribed by the Immigration and
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
Nationality Act, as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.1 It states that “the
administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.”2 With respect to the decision to grant asylum, “the
Attorney General’s discretionary judgment whether to grant relief
. . . shall be conclusive unless manifestly contrary to the law and
an abuse of discretion.”3
In this case, the BIA dismissed Moreno’s appeal for the
reasons contained in the IJ’s ruling. Thus, we review the factual
findings of the IJ under the standard required by the IIRIRA.4 If
Moreno fails to show either that he has suffered past persecution
or has a “well-founded fear of persecution on account of race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion,”5 he is not eligible for asylum or withholding
of removal. Because we uphold the IJ’s determination that Moreno
1
Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546 (1996) (codified in portions of
8 U.S.C.).
2
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
3
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D).
4
See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).
5
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (defining “refugee”). 8 U.S.C. § 1158 gives the
Attorney General discretion to grant asylum to an alien meeting this definition
of refugee. Likewise, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) requires the Attorney General to
withhold removal when the alien meets these same requirements for refugee status,
except that the alien must show by a “clear probability” that he would be
persecuted, not merely a “well-founded fear.” See Mikhael, 115 F.3d at 306.
Since we do not overturn the IJ’s asylum ruling that Moreno had no “well-founded
fear” of future persecution, a fortiori the IJ’s withholding of removal decision
cannot be overturned. See Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir. 1994).
2
did not suffer past persecution and has no well-founded fear of
persecution, we need not address the remaining requirements for
overturning the BIA’s ruling.
The IJ noted inconsistencies in some of Moreno’s testimony,
but generally credited Moreno’s account of his treatment by the El
Salvadorean government and guerrilla forces. The IJ found that
Moreno had been forcibly recruited into the civil patrol by the
government of El Salvador, and that he had been captured and held
by guerrillas. Although he was mistreated by the guerrillas, the
IJ found that the mistreatment was not severe and did not
constitute torture. The IJ thus concluded that Moreno was not the
victim of past persecution.6
The IJ also found that Moreno did not have a well-founded or
reasonable fear of future persecution. Moreno testified that he
fears future attempts at recruitment by the guerrillas; he also
fears that they may try to kill him for refusing to join them. The
IJ, however, cited a State Department report detailing the greatly
improved human rights situation in El Salvador, which has
continuously improved since a peace accord between the government
and guerrillas in 1992. The report noted that the guerrillas are
fully integrated into the government and no longer engaging in
organized, politically motivated violence.
6
This ruling is consistent with the ruling under similar facts upheld by
this court in Mikhael, 115 F.3d at 303-04.
3
The IJ’s findings are amply supported by the administrative
record. After a review of the entire record in this case, we
cannot say that “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to
conclude to the contrary.” Thus, we cannot overturn the IJ’s
findings that there was no past persecution and no well-founded
fear of future persecution. Without a showing of past persecution
or well-founded fear of future persecution, Moreno is entitled to
no relief from his removal order. Thus, we DENY his petition.
4
Moreno v. Ashcroft
Combined Opinion