United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Fifth Circuit August 13, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60631
JUAN DE DIOS DIAZ FLORES
Petitioner,
VERSUS
JOHN ASHCROFT, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition For Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
A78-175-873
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges,
Per Curiam:*
Petitioner Juan de Dios Diaz Flores (“Diaz Flores”) appeals
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his application
for asylum and order of removal to Diaz Flores’s home country of
Honduras.
In February 2000 Juan de Dios Diaz-Flores (“Diaz-Flores”) fled
Honduras and traveled to the United States seeking asylum. In
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
March 2000 he was detained by immigration officers as he attempted
to enter the United States. At that time he sought political
asylum and his petition was set for hearing before an immigration
judge (“IJ”). After the hearing, the IJ held that the petitioner
had not satisfied his burden of proving past persecution or a
reasonable fear of future persecution as required to receive
asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). The IJ then denied the
petition for asylum and the request to withhold removal. The BIA
affirmed the IJ’s order and Diaz Flores prosecutes this appeal.
At his evidentiary hearing Diaz Flores testified that he and
his family received frequent death threats from 1990 to 2000 for
petitioner’s participation in a hospital workers union and a
dissenting political party. Several of Diaz Flores’s colleagues in
the political party were killed between 1997 and 2000, and
petitioner finally made the decision to flee Honduras when a close
colleague was killed in early 2000.
Although the IJ found Diaz Flores’s testimony credible, some
of that testimony is undermined by facts petitioner presented to
the IJ. First, Diaz Flores remained in Honduras for ten years
after he first received death threats, and despite receiving
numerous threats he only notified the authorities of the threats
and intimidation on two occasions. Second, Diaz Flores’s family
has remained in Honduras since petitioner left in February 2000;
they have received no death threats and have not been harmed.
2
Although the IJ concluded that petitioner’s testimony was
generally credible, he was concerned about petitioner’s unexplained
failure to produce evidence from friends, family and other union
officials to corroborate the threats to him or the harm to
colleagues. Because of petitioner’s unexplained failure to produce
this evidence, the IJ concluded that petitioner failed to carry his
burden of proof to establish that he had suffered persecution in
the past or had a well founded fear of persecution.
We owe deference to the findings of the IJ and BIA, reviewing
their factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. In
reviewing for substantial evidence we must uphold the BIA's or IJ's
factual findings "unless the evidence is so compelling that no
reasonable fact finder could fail to find otherwise." Lopez-Gomez
v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation
marks omitted). After carefully reviewing the record, we are
satisfied that the BIA’s decision denying asylum is supported by
substantial evidence.2
For the reasons stated above we affirm the BIA’s order.
AFFIRMED.
2
Where asylum is not appropriate withholding removal is also inappropriate.
See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).
3