United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 13, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60783
Summary Calendar
VICTOR LEONEL CORTEZ-OROZCO,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A79 092 335
--------------------
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Victor Leonel Cortez-Orozco, a native of Colombia, petitions
for review of an order issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”). The BIA’s order affirmed the decision of the
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) that denied Cortez-Orozco’s applications
for asylum and withholding of removal.
Cortez-Orozco asserts that the IJ erred by deciding that he
did not suffer persecution and that he did not establish a
well-founded fear of persecution if he is removed to Colombia.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-60783
-2-
We construe the Respondent’s motion for summary affirmance as its
brief.
We review legal conclusions de novo and findings for
substantial evidence. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444
(5th Cir. 2001). We will not reverse a BIA decision unless the
evidence is “‘so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder could
conclude against it.’” Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 419 (5th
Cir. 2003).
The IJ found that the testimony produced at the hearing was
not credible. We give great deference to such credibility
determinations. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 905 (5th Cir.
2002). Cortez-Orozco does not challenge the IJ’s credibility
determination.
The IJ found that Cortez-Orozco did not provide credible
evidence of the threats that he allegedly received. Cortez-
Orozco does not challenge this finding. Cortez-Orozco does not
challenge the IJ’s denial of relief under the Convention Against
Torture.
The failure to provide in an appellate brief an argument as
well as citations to authorities and the record on an issue
constitutes abandonment of the issue; Cortez-Orozco has abandoned
any challenge related to the above-mentioned issues and findings.
See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
The IJ’s findings that Cortez-Orozco was not subjected to
persecution and that he did not establish a well-founded fear of
No. 03-60783
-3-
persecution if he is removed to Colombia are supported by the
record. See Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 351 (5th
Cir. 2002); Adebisi v. INS, 952 F.2d 910, 912 (5th Cir. 1992).
Cortez-Orozco did not provide any facts, citations to the record,
and citations to authorities in support of his assertions that he
has suffered and will suffer persecution in Colombia. Cortez-
Orozco’s conclusional allegations are insufficient to warrant a
reversal of the BIA’s decision. Moin, 335 F.3d at 419.
We consider Cortez-Orozco’s asylum claim also as a request
for withholding of deportation. Castillo-Rodriguez v. INS, 929
F.2d 181, 185 (5th Cir. 1991). Because Cortez-Orozco does not
meet the standard for asylum, he does not meet the standard for
withholding of deportation. Efe, 293 F.3d at 906. Accordingly,
the petition for review is DENIED.
The Respondent’s motion for summary affirmance or in the
alternative for an extension of time to file a response brief is
DENIED.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED; MOTION DENIED.