United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 6, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60708
Summary Calendar
PEDRO ROLANDO CHAY ZAPETA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A72 450 392
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Pedro Rolando Chay Zapeta (“Chay”), a native of the El
Quiche province of Guatemala, petitions for review of the order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing, without
opinion, his appeal of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal and
rejecting his application for relief under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-60708
-2-
Because the BIA summarily affirmed without opinion the IJ’s
decision, the IJ’s decision is the final agency determination for
judicial review. See Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 418 (5th
Cir. 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7)(iii). We will uphold the
finding that an alien is not eligible for asylum if that finding
is supported by substantial evidence. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76,
78 (5th Cir. 1994). The substantial evidence standard requires
that the IJ’s decision be based on the record evidence and that
the decision be substantially reasonable. Carbajal-Gonzalez v.
INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). Under this standard, the
IJ’s determination will be affirmed unless the “evidence compels
a contrary conclusion.” Id.
Chay asserted in his application and in hearing testimony
that, in or about 1988, his parents fled Guatemala for United
States, leaving Chay, who was then only 14 or 15 years old, to
care for his seven younger siblings. Chay maintained that, in
1986, one of his uncles, an interpreter for the Guatemalan army,
had been murdered by Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity
(“URNG”) guerillas, and that the guerillas had then threatened
Chay’s father with death. After the children’s parents left the
country, the guerillas threatened them with death as well, and
confronted Chay in the street with threats. Chay fled to the
United States in 1992.
The IJ determined that Chay had not established past
persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, because
No. 03-60708
-3-
he had failed to save documentary evidence of the threats,
because no member of his immediate family had been harmed in
almost two decades since the threats began, and because the
Guatemalan government and the URNG guerillas had reached a peace
accord in 1996.
After reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude that
the IJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and that
the record evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion. See
Carbajal-Gonzalez, 78 F.3d at 197. 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 relief under the CAT. See Efe v.
Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906, 907 (5th Cir. 2002). By failing to
brief any argument concerning the denial of withholding of
removal, Chay has abandoned any claim regarding that denial. See
Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986).
The petition for review is DENIED.