United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 15, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60005
Summary Calendar
MARIO RUBEN GARCIA SEPULVEDA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A95 223 050
--------------------
Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mario Ruben Garcia Sepulveda petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) opinion that affirmed the
decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying him asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture Act. As Sepulveda does not specifically challenge the
IJ’s denial of his request for relief under the Convention
Against Torture, that issue is deemed abandoned. See
Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-60005
-2-
Sepulveda argues that the IJ’s finding that he failed to
demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution is not supported by substantial evidence in light of
his testimony and the evidence he submitted at the immigration
hearing. We review the IJ’s decision because the BIA summarily
affirmed the IJ’s decision, thereby making it the final agency
decision. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832 (5th Cir.
2003). We will uphold the IJ’s determination that Sepulveda is
not eligible for asylum if it is supported by substantial
evidence. Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994). To
reverse the IJ’s determination that Sepulveda is not eligible for
asylum, he must demonstrate the evidence was so compelling that
no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it. Chun v. INS,
40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994).
Sepulveda failed to make the requisite showing.
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.