United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 3, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60769
Summary Calendar
DANIEL HUMBERTO MORALES-GARCIA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A76 900 687
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Daniel Humberto Morales-Garcia petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily
affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision to deny his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Morales argues that the
IJ and BIA did not give meaningful, fair, and full consideration
to the evidence in the record and that there was substantial
evidence to support his claims for asylum and withholding of
removal. Because Morales has not briefed a claim for protection
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-60769
-2-
under CAT, that claim is abandoned. Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS,
809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986).
Contrary to Morales’s contention, the BIA’s summary
affirmance of the IJ’s decision was proper. See Moin v.
Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2003). After reviewing the
record and the briefs, we conclude that the decision is supported
by substantial evidence and that the evidence in the record does
not compel a conclusion contrary to that reached by the IJ and
BIA. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 303 n.2 (5th Cir. 1997);
Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996); Chun
v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994); Castillo-Rodriguez v.
INS, 929 F.2d 181, 185 (5th Cir. 1991). Specifically, we note
that the alleged threats made against Morales occurred
approximately 15 years ago and neither he nor his family have
been harmed during the ensuing years. Threats, standing alone,
are insufficient to establish persecution. See e.g., Ahmed v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 611, 616 (7th Cir. 2003); Fesseha v. Ashcroft,
333 F.3d 13, 18 (1st Cir. 2003); Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936
(9th Cir. 2000).
In addition, the IJ and the BIA may take administrative
notice of changed circumstances which show that there is little
likelihood of present or future persecution. Matter of Chen, 20
I. & N. Dec. 16, 18, 1989 WL 331860 (BIA 1989). Morales does not
address or challenge the IJ’s finding that, because of the 1996
No. 03-60769
-3-
peace accords with the guerrillas in Guatemala, he would not face
persecution upon his return there.
The petition for review is DENIED.