United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 23, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60762
Summary Calendar
FITSUMBERHAN MEKONEN OGBAZGHI,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A78-881-272
--------------------
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Fitsumberhan Mekonen Ogbazghi (Ogbazghi) was born in Asmara,
Eritrea when Asmara was considered to still be a part of
Ethiopia. Ogbazghi petitions this court to review the decision
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application
for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT), and his alternative request for
voluntary departure. Ogbazghi argues that the Immigration Judge
(IJ) did not consider all of his reasons for leaving Eritrea, but
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-60762
-2-
rather focused only on his reason to evade military service.
Ogbazghi argues that he established that he suffered past
persecution and has a well-founded fear of future persecution on
account of his political opinion.
This court will uphold the BIA’s factual finding that an
alien is not eligible for asylum if that finding is supported by
substantial evidence. Gomez-Mejia v. I.N.S., 56 F.3d 700, 702
(5th Cir. 1995). This court generally reviews only the BIA’s
decision except to the extent that the BIA adopted the IJ’s
decision. Mikhael v. I.N.S., 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).
Contrary to Ogbazghi’s assertion, the record reflects that
the IJ considered all of Ogbazghi’s reasons for leaving Eritrea
and for fearing persecution if he returned. Furthermore, the
IJ’s decision denying relief is supported by substantial evidence
and the evidence in the record does not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Mikhael, 115 F.3d at 302.
Ogbazghi does not specifically challenge the IJ’s finding
that he is not entitled to relief under the CAT and is ineligible
for voluntary departure. Ogbazghi makes a conclusory assertion
that he is entitled to such relief without stating the showing
required or the evidence which he contends shows his entitlement.
Therefore, any issues relating to the denial of relief under the
CAT and voluntary departure are deemed waived. See Calderon-
Ontiveros v. I.N.S., 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986).
No. 03-60762
-3-
Accordingly, Ogbazghi’s petition for review is DENIED.
Additionally, his motion for stay of removal is DENIED as
unnecessary.