United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 9, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60717
Summary Calendar
WILFIDO RUMALDO ZAPET,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A70792090
--------------------
Before JOLLY, JONES and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Wilfido Rumaldo Zapet petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ opinion that affirmed the decision of the
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Zapet asylum and withholding of
removal. Zapet contends that he established past persecution by
guerrillas in Guatemala and that it is reasonable for him to
believe that if he is forced to return to Guatemala, he will be
punished or killed because he fled from the guerrillas. Zapet
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 02-60717
-2-
contends that the BIA erred by failing to consider documentary
evidence that he provided in support of his position.
We review the IJ’s decision because the BIA summarily
affirmed without opinion and essentially adopted the IJ’s
decision. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).
Review of the legal conclusions is de novo; review of the
findings is for substantial evidence. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft,
263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). The findings are accepted
“‘unless the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable fact
finder could fail to find otherwise.’” Lopez-Gomez, 263 F.3d at
444.
The Attorney General may grant asylum to a refugee who has
established past persecution or a well-founded fear of
persecution in the country of origin on account of race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group,
or political opinion. Id. at 444-45.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s findings that Zapet’s
single encounter with guerrilla forces in Guatemala when the
guerillas attempted to recuit him did not establish past
persecution. See id. at 444; cf. Mikhael, 115 F.3d at 303-04.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Zapet did not
establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See Mikhael, 115
F.3d at 304-05; see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
479-80 (1992).
No. 02-60717
-3-
The IJ admitted documentary evidence provided by Zapet.
Zapet does not identify the particular documentary evidence that
he alleges the BIA did not consider, nor does he explain why the
specific evidence was pivotal to his case. Zapet has not shown
error.
The standard for withholding of removal is more stringent
than the standard necessary for asylum and requires the alien to
make a showing that a “‘clear probability’” exists that he will
be persecuted if he is removed. Mikhael, 115 F.3d at 306.
Because Zapet did not make the required showing for asylum, he
was not eligible for withholding of removal. Id. at 306 & n.10.
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.