United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS February 13, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60799
Summary Calendar
EFRAIN TORRES, MARIA PEREZ TORRES, EFRAIN TORRES, JR, minor,
FARLEDI TORRES, minor, ELIANI TORRES, minor
Petitioners
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT, US ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA Nos. A74 699 369
A76 417 265
A76 417 268
A76 417 267
A76 417 266
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Efrain Torres, his wife Maria, and three of their children,
citizens of Colombia, petition for review of the final order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming “without
opinion” the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision to deny their
application for asylum.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-60799
-2-
The Torreses proceeded pro se during their administrative
proceedings. Now represented by counsel, they argue for the
first time that the IJ violated their due process rights in
several instances during the hearing process. This court lacks
jurisdiction to review issues not raised before the BIA. Wang v.
Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001); Ozdemir v. INS,
46 F.3d 6, 8 (5th Cir. 1994). Even if we were to consider the
Torreses’ due process claims, we would find them meritless.
Aliens are entitled to due process of law in deportation
proceedings, but such challenges “require an initial showing of
substantial prejudice.” Anwar v. INS, 116 F.3d 140, 144 (5th
Cir. 1997). The Torreses maintain that the IJ failed to advise
them about how to prove their asylum claim and about the
possibility of filing separate asylum applications, failed to
consider their eligibility for withholding of removal or relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), prevented Efrain
from giving narrative testimony, and failed to develop the record
fully. Because they have failed, however, to make a showing of
prejudice, the due process claims are meritless.
The Torreses argue that they were persecuted because three
death threats were made to Efrain Torres in 1994, when he ran for
president of Colombia as the candidate for the “Say No to War”
party. One threat was made anonymously through a fax machine at
the Torreses home/office in Bogota, a second was made during an
anonymous telephone call to Efrain, and third made through
No. 02-60799
-3-
Efrain’s mother in her hometown of Tarqui. Efrain admitted that
the family continued to live in Bogota for approximately a year
without incident after the 1994 election.
After reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude that
the IJ’s decision as adopted by the BIA is supported by
substantial evidence and that the record evidence does not compel
a contrary conclusion. See Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d
442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001); Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830,
831-32 (5th Cir. 2003). The threats, standing alone, were
insufficient to establish persecution. See, e.g., Ahmed v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 611, 616 (7th Cir. 2003); Fesseha v. Ashcroft,
333 F.3d 13, 18 (1st Cir. 2003); Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936
(9th Cir. 2000). The evidence submitted was also insufficient to
support the granting of either withholding of removal or relief
under the CAT. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906, 907 (5th
Cir. 2002).
The petition for review is DENIED.