United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
November 12, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60243
Summary Calendar
MARVIN A. RODRIGUEZ; ANA MARIA RODRIGUEZ;
NANCY MARIA RODRIGUEZ; TANYA RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioners,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A73-678-480
BIA No. A78-597-862
BIA No. A78-597-863
BIA No. A78-597-864
--------------------
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioners (collectively, “the Rodriguez family”) are
citizens of Guatemala who appeal the denial of Petitioner Marvin
Rodriguez’s application for asylum, on which the remaining
petitioners applied as riders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158. Marvin
Rodriguez also appeals the denial of his application for
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
withholding of deportation and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT). See 8 U.S.C. § 1158; 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c).
We conduct a de novo review of the BIA’s legal rulings but
“will defer to the BIA’s interpretation of immigration regulations
if the interpretation is reasonable.” Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263
F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). Factual findings are reviewed for
substantial evidence. See id. The substantial-evidence standard
requires only that the decision have some basis in fact in the
record; it does not require that we agree with the decision.
Renteria-Gonzalez v. INS, 322 F.3d 804, 816 (5th Cir. 2003). Under
the substantial evidence test, we may not reverse the BIA’s factual
determination unless the evidence compels it. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d
76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994).
The record supports the BIA’s conclusion that Marvin
Rodriguez’s testimony is contradictory. The Rodriguez family’s
assertion that Marvin Rodriguez was specifically targeted by
guerrillas is contradicted by his own account of the bridge attack,
in which he testified that the guerrillas had mistaken him for a
member of the military. In addition, the Rodriguez family has
failed to provide any documentary evidence to support the claim of
persecution. In light of the vague and contradictory testimony
given by Marvin Rodriguez, the BIA did not err in concluding that
some form of documentary support was vital to the Rodriguez
family’s claims. See In re Y-B, 21 I & N Dec. 1136, 1139 (1998).
2
Marvin Rodriguez also contends that he is entitled to relief
under the CAT because deportation to Guatemala would almost
certainly lead to his being tortured. The CAT requires an alien to
show “‘that it is more likely than not that he or she would
be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.
The testimony of the applicant, if credible, may be sufficient
to sustain the burden of proof without corroboration.’” Efe v.
Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted);
8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). In the absence of any corroborating
evidence to support his claims, Marvin Rodriguez’s inconsistent
testimony cannot sustain his burden of proof. See Efe, 293 F.3d at
907. Accordingly, the BIA did not err in denying Marvin
Rodriguez’s CAT claim.
Petitioners Marvin and Ana Maria Rodriguez have not briefed
the BIA’s denial of their application for cancellation of removal.
The issue is therefore waived on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985
F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
The Petitioners’ petition for review is
DENIED.
3