United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 16, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60222
Summary Calendar
LAL RAM MUANA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA No. A78-318-165)
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner Lal Ram Muana, a native and citizen of Burma,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
to deny his application for asylum. Muana has waived the denial of
his applications for withholding of removal and relief under the
Convention Against Torture by failing to argue those issues.
Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986).
This court will uphold the BIA’s factual finding that an alien
is not eligible for asylum if the determination is supported by
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
substantial evidence. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir.
2002). “The substantial evidence standard requires only that the
Board’s conclusion be based upon the evidence presented and be
substantially reasonable.” Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d
341, 350 (5th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). As the BIA summarily affirmed without opinion the IJ’s
decision, the IJ’s decision is the final agency determination for
judicial review. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 831-32
(5th Cir. 2003).
Muana has failed to make the requisite showing that he is
unable or unwilling to return to Burma “because of persecution or
a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); see also Jukic v. INS,
40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
2