United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT September 13, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60954
Summary Calendar
JULIO RIVERA-PRUDENCIA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(A95-117-426)
Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Julio Rivera-Prudencia (Rivera) petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) summarily affirming the
immigration judge’s (IJ) decision to deny his application for
asylum and withholding of removal.
The IJ’s conclusion that Rivera has not shown past persecution
or a well-founded fear of future persecution due to his political
opinion was supported by substantial evidence. See Faddoul v. INS,
37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994). Rivera makes vague assertions
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
that, due to his father’s military status, he was persecuted before
he left El Salvador in 1993, but he does not explain how he was
persecuted, nor does he offer any evidence that any members of his
family living in El Salvador have ever been targets of persecution.
The only evidence of harassment that Rivera offered was that,
upon his return to El Salvador in 2001, his coworkers issued death
threats and were aggressive toward him due to his refusal to
participate in a political protest march with them. Rivera’s
coworkers’ anger was due, however, to the fact that Rivera could
expose to authorities criminal activities that occurred during the
march, not due to Rivera’s political opinion. In addition, as the
IJ noted, Rivera can avoid such coworker conduct by relocating to
a city other than those in which he had lived. Accordingly, the IJ
did not err in denying Rivera’s asylum and withholding of removal
application.
Rivera has not identified any error in the IJ’s determination
that he was not eligible for withholding of removal under the
Convention Against Torture. Therefore, Rivera has waived this
issue. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
DENIED
2