United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
August 3, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
_________________________ Clerk
No. 03 - 60920
SUMMARY CALENDAR
_________________________
AKLIL GETACHEW, also known as Michael Fisseha,
Petitioner,
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
_____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A77-520-986
_________________________________________________________________
_____________
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS, Circuit
Judges.
REYNALDO G. GARZA, Circuit Judge:1
In this appeal, we review the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(hereinafter, “BIA”) decision denying Aklil Getachew’s
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture.
While the BIA found that Getachew had suffered past
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.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.
-1-
persecution under the Ethiopian government because of his
political opinion and his Eritrean heritage, the BIA held that
evidence of changed country conditions rebutted the presumption
that Getachew had a well-founded fear of future persecution.
Getachew disagrees and argues that the presumption of a well-
founded fear of persecution was not rebutted.
We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial
evidence and conclusions of law de novo. See Lopez-Gomez v.
Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). The BIA
appropriately based its decision that changed country conditions
rebutted the presumption that Getachew had a well-founded fear of
future persecution on a United States State Department Report.
See Rojas v. I.N.S., 937 F.2d 186, 190 n.1 (5th Cir. 1991). The
report indicates that the Ethiopian government is no longer
forcibly deporting Eritreans or Ethiopians with Eritrean
heritage. In addition to the State Department report, the BIA
noted that members of Getachew’s family currently live in
Ethiopia without fear of persecution. Thus, the BIA’s decision
is supported by substantial evidence, and the evidence in the
record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Mikhael v.
I.N.S., 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).
Getachew next argues that the BIA should have granted asylum
based on the severity of his past persecution alone. We find,
however, that the BIA’s decision to deny discretionary asylum was
-2-
not manifestly contrary to law or an abuse of discretion. See
Rojas, 937 F.2d at 188.
Getachew has also abandoned the issue of denial of his
application for withholding of removal by failing to address it
in his petition for review. See Calderon-Ontiveros v. I.N.S.,
809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Getachew’s claim
under the Convention Against Torture because Getachew has failed
to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to this
claim. See Wang v. Aschcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir.
2001); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
For the foregoing reasons, Getachew’s petition for review is
DENIED.
-3-