United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 21, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60948
Summary Calendar
ARMANDO OZUNA-SOLORZANO,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A29 984 862
--------------------
Before DUHÉ, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:1
Armando Ozuna-Solorzano, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)
denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of
deportation. Ozuna contends that he has established past
persecution on account of his political opinion, and the Respondent
has failed to rebut the ensuing presumptions by a preponderance of
the evidence that the conditions in Guatemala have fundamentally
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
changed so that he no longer has a well-founded fear of future
persecution and so that his life or freedom would not be threatened
upon his return.
When, as in this case, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision
without a written opinion, this court reviews the IJ’s decision.
Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). This court will
uphold the IJ’s determination that an alien is not eligible for
asylum or withholding of deportation if it is supported by
substantial evidence. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir.
2002).
After careful review of the record and the briefs, this court
concludes that the IJ’s determination that there has been a
fundamental change in Guatemala such that Ozuna no longer has a
well-founded fear of persecution is substantially reasonable. See
Carbajal-Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). An
alien who does not make the required showing for asylum is not
eligible for withholding of deportation. See Mikhael, 115 F.3d at
306 & n. 10.
Ozuna has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to
his claim for a discretionary grant of asylum. Thus, this court
lacks jurisdiction to review the claim. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1); Witter v. I.N.S., 113 F.3d 549, 554 (5th Cir. 1997).
Ozuna’s petition for review is
DENIED.
2