United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 5, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60107
Summary Calendar
WILLIAM ALBERTO TORO; JULIANA BAEZ;
DANIELA BAEZ LOPEZ; ANDRES TORO,
Petitioners,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A78-350-939
BIA No. A78-350-940
BIA No. A78-350-941
BIA No. A78-350-942
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William Alberto Toro, his wife Juliana Baez, and their
children, Daniela Baez Lopez and Andres Toro, all natives of
Colombia, petition for review of an order from the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision to deny their applications for asylum,
withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-60107
-2-
(“INA”), and withholding of removal under the Convention Against
Torture Act (“CAT”).
The Toros raise several claims asserting procedural errors
occurring during the hearing held before the IJ, which were not
presented to the BIA. The respondent argues that these claims
must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based on a failure to
exhaust the claims administratively.
Because the exhaustion requirement is statutorily mandated,
an alien’s failure to exhaust an issue before the BIA is a
jurisdictional bar to this court’s consideration of the issue.
Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001). The alleged
procedural errors raised by the Toros could have been corrected
if they had been presented to the BIA. Therefore, these claims
are not subject to review based on lack of exhaustion. Id.
The Toros argue that the BIA erred in allowing the case to
be “streamlined” because the factual issues in the case merited
a full review by the BIA and the errors in the decision were not
harmless or nonmaterial. The BIA’s affirmance was not a summary
affirmance pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7) (now 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(a)(7)) because the BIA did not cite that provision as
required by the regulation and did not indicate that it was
affirming without opinion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7)(iii).
Further, the BIA provided reasons for agreeing with the decision
of the IJ. This claim is without merit.
No. 03-60107
-3-
The Toros argue that the BIA erred in adopting the IJ’s
finding that the Toros were not “refugees” based on a well
founded fear of future persecution because Toro was no longer
working for the alarm company and was not sure if the company
was still in business. A refugee is a person who is outside of
his or her country and is unable or unwilling to return “because
of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account
of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).
Pretermitting the question whether the action taken by the
guerillas against the Toros was due to Mr. Toro’s political
opinion or his membership in a social group, the evidence of
threatening telephone calls and verbal threats made by guerillas
during Toro’s brief detention does not reflect that such action
was so severe as to constitute persecution. See Mikhael v. INS,
115 F.3d 299, 303-04 (5th Cir. 1997); Abdel-Masieh v. U.S. INS,
73 F.3d 579, 582, 584 (5th Cir. 1996).
To establish a “well-founded fear of persecution,” Toro
"must show that a reasonable person in the same circumstances
would fear persecution if deported." Mikhael, 115 F.3d at 304.
Toro does not dispute that his company is no longer in business.
Thus, the guerillas’ main reason for harassing him has been
eliminated. Toro has not provided any evidence to show that it
is likely that the guerillas will single him out for intolerable
abuse if he returns to Colombia. Thus, the Toros have not
No. 03-60107
-4-
established that a reasonable person would fear persecution if
he returned to Colombia. There is substantial evidence in the
record to support the BIA’s denial of the Toros’ application for
asylum.
Because Toro did not establish a prima facie case for
asylum, he also cannot meet the more stringent standard for
proving his eligibility for withholding of removal. See Girma
v. INS, 283 F.3d 664, 666-67 (5th Cir. 2002). Toro failed to
brief any arguments regarding the BIA’s denial of relief under
the CAT and has therefore abandoned any arguments relating to
that claim. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.
1993).
The respondent’s motion to dismiss the unexhausted claims is
GRANTED. The petition for review is DENIED. The respondent’s
motion to waive the briefing requirement is GRANTED, and the
motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as
moot.