United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 3, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60486
Summary Calendar
POALA MILAND LENIS-GUZMAN,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A76 312 711
--------------------
Before DUHÉ, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Poala Miland Lenis-Guzman requests review of the May 16, 2003,
denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of her motion to
reopen based upon changed conditions in Colombia. She argues that
there was substantial evidence before the Immigration Judge (IJ) to
support a finding that she suffered past persecution and had a
well-founded fear of future persecution by a guerrilla group in
Colombia based upon her membership in a particular social group,
namely the group of upper middle-class Colombians who have been
1
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
bribed and threatened by guerilla groups because of their
socioeconomic status. She argues that, when she filed her
application for asylum, the State Department had taken the view
that guerilla groups in Colombia were fragmented with little
organized cooperation. She states that, by 2003, when she filed
her motion to reopen, the State Department reported the breakdown
of the peace process between the Colombian government and the
guerrillas. She asserts that, based upon this new evidence, the
BIA erred in denying her motion to reopen.
Because Lenis did not file a petition for review within 30
days of the BIA’s December 11, 2002, final order, denying her
applications for asylum and withholding of removal, we do not have
jurisdiction to review that order. See Karimian-Kaklaki v. INS,
997 F.2d 108, 111 (5th Cir. 1993).
Lenis’ motion to reopen and the attached document from the
State Department did not demonstrate a particularized connection
between the feared persecution and her race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. See
Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994). This was an
explicit basis for the IJ’s decision, denying her application for
asylum. As she failed to address one of the grounds by the IJ for
denying her asylum application, she did not show that her case
warranted reopening. Accordingly, Lenis has not shown that the BIA
abused its discretion in denying her motion to reopen. See INS v.
2
Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322 (1992); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).
Her petition for review is therefore DENIED.
3