United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS October 24, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60155
Summary Calendar
MARIA ANTONIA TZOC-AJUCUM,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A70-687-299
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Maria Antonia Tzoc-Ajucum, a citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)
decision denying her applications for asylum and withholding of
removal. The BIA found that Tzoc had suffered past persecution
on account of her political opinion but the IJ nevertheless
denied Tzoc’s application for asylum in which Tzoc alleged that,
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-60155
-2-
because she had voiced her disagreement with the political views
of the guerillas during Guatemala’s civil war, she had been
persecuted by the guerrillas, who had attempted to recruit her to
fight in the war.
Tzoc argues that the presumption of a well-founded fear of
future persecution was not rebutted. We conclude that the BIA’s
decision is supported by substantial evidence and that the
evidence in the record does not compel a contrary conclusion.
See I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992);
Mikhael v. I.N.S., 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). Tzoc also
argues that the BIA should have granted discretionary asylum even
in the absence of a fear of future persecution. To the extent
that this argument is based on the contention that she showed
compelling reasons for being unwilling to return to Guatemala,
we conclude that the BIA’s decision was not manifestly contrary
to law or an abuse of discretion. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D).
To the extent that this argument is based on the contention
that Tzoc faced a reasonable possibility of other serious harm
upon her return to Guatemala, Tzoc has failed to exhaust her
administrative remedies with respect to this claim. See Witter
v. I.N.S., 113 F.3d 549, 554 (5th Cir. 1997).
Tzoc has also failed to exhaust her administrative remedies
with respect to her claim that, because her asylum application
would have been granted if it had been decided more promptly,
Ashcroft should be estopped from arguing for the denial of asylum
No. 03-60155
-3-
based on the change in country circumstances that occurred during
the pendency of her application. See id. In any event, Tzoc has
not alleged any wrongdoing on the part of Ashcroft or any failure
in carrying out Ashcroft’s duties that would support a finding of
estoppel. Tzoc has abandoned the issue of the denial of her
application for withholding of deportation by failing to address
that issue in her petition for review. See Calderon-Ontiveros v.
I.N.S., 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986).
Tzoc’s petition for review is DENIED.