United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 18, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60584
Summary Calendar
JOSE DAVID MORALES-GUERRA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A78 314 975
--------------------
Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose David Morales-Guerra (Morales), a citizen of El
Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ)
denial of Morales’s application for withholding of removal under
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
This court usually reviews only the BIA’s decision, not that
of the IJ, except to the extent that the IJ’s decision influences
the BIA. Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).
Because the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, however,
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-60584
-2-
the IJ’s decision is the final agency determination for judicial
review. Id.
To obtain withholding of removal under the INA, an applicant
“must show that it is more likely than not that his life or
freedom would be threatened by persecution,” based on his
political opinion, race, religion, nationality, or membership in
a particular social group. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906
(5th Cir. 2002) (quotation marks omitted). We review for
substantial evidence the determination that an alien is not
entitled to withholding of removal. See id. at 905-06.
Morales contends that the IJ erred by determining that he
had not shown it was more likely than not he would be subjected
to persecution because of his former employment as a police
officer, if he returned to El Salvador. The record does not
compel a finding that Morales met his burden to show that he was
entitled to withholding of removal under the INA. See Roy v.
Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138-39 (5th Cir. 2004). Thus, Morales
has failed to show that the IJ’s decision was not supported by
substantial evidence. See Mikhael, 115 F.3d at 302.
The petition for review is DENIED.