United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 21, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60677
Summary Calendar
GLORIA E. RODRIGUEZ; DAVID GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioners,
versus
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA Nos. A74 636 443
A74 636 444
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gloria E. Rodriguez and David G. Rodriguez petition this court
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing their appeal from the denial of their applications for
asylum and withholding of deportation.
The Rodriguezes argue that the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
BIA erroneously concluded that the Rodriguezes each failed to show
that they qualified for asylum. They argue that the IJ failed to
consider evidence of persecution, including David’s dismissal from
his job, his subsequent unsuccessful attempts to obtain legal
redress, and threats against the family. After reviewing the
evidence, we conclude that the BIA’s finding that the Rodriguezes
were not refugees eligible for asylum was supported by reasonable
and substantial evidence and that the Rodriguezes failed to show
that the evidence they presented “was such that a reasonable
factfinder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of
persecution existed.” See I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 112 S.Ct. 812,
815 (1992).
The Rodriguezes also argue that because they were proceeding
pro se, the IJ’s failure to provide additional assistance in the
factual development of their claims denied them a full and fair
opportunity to present their claims. This court, however, has held
that an IJ has no duty “to develop the facts necessary to prove
[the alien’s] case.” Lopez-Rodriguez v. I.N.S., No. 93-5242 at *15
(5th Cir. Mar. 24, 1994) (unpublished).1
Accordingly, the petition for review is
DENIED.
1
In accordance with 5th Cir. 47.5.3, unpublished opinions
issued before January 1, 1996, are precedent.
2