United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
November 24, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-61136
Summary Calendar
CHRIS ATWOOKI BAGUMA; JULIET KYOSHABIRE,
Petitioners,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - -
Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA Nos. A75-348-776 & A75-379-011
- - - - - - - - - -
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Chris Atwooki Baguma (Baguma) and his wife, Juliet
Kyoshabire (Kyoshabire), natives and citizens of Uganda, request
review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which
summarily affirmed without written opinion, the decision of the
immigration judge (IJ) to deny Baguma’s application for asylum
and for withholding of deportation. Kyoshabire’s claims are
dependent upon the resolution of Baguma’s. We directly review
the IJ’s decision. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832
(5th Cir. 2003).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-61136
-2-
Baguma contends that the IJ erred by finding that punishment
of Baguma for treason, resulting from his passing of military
secrets to rebels, was not persecution “on account of” his
political opinion. This claim fails because “the mere existence
of a generalized ‘political’ motive” does not establish
persecution “on account of political opinion.” INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482 (1992); see Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d
299, 304 (5th Cir. 1997) (acts of harassment “attributed to the
civil unrest in the country during wartime”); Ozdemir v. INS, 46
F.3d 6, 7 (5th Cir. 1994) (mistreatment due to desire to discover
terrorist activity). Accord Chanco v. INS, 82 F.3d 298, 302 (9th
Cir. 1996) (“Prosecution for participation in a coup does not
constitute persecution on account of political opinion when
peaceful means of protest are available for which the alien would
not face punishment. Prosecution in these circumstances is no
different from prosecution for a common law crime.”). Baguma has
not shown “‘that the evidence he presented was so compelling that
no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of
persecution.’” Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir. 1994)
(quoting Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84).
Baguma also contends that the IJ’s adverse credibility
assessment was baseless. A panel of this Court “cannot replace
the . . . IJ’s determinations concerning witness credibility or
ultimate factual findings based on credibility determinations
with its own determinations.” Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 905
(5th Cir. 2002). The IJ’s finding that Baguma was not credible
was a reasonable interpretation of the record, and the evidence
No. 02-61136
-3-
did not compel a contrary conclusion. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d
76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994).
The petition for review is DENIED.
The motion, contained within the brief, that this Court
reconsider its denial of a stay of deportation is DENIED.
PETITION DENIED; ALL MOTIONS DENIED.