United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 11, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60805
Summary Calendar
CARLOS ALBERTO LOZANO HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A96 085 281
--------------------
Before DAVIS, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carlos Alberto Lozano Hernandez (Lozano) petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) decision
denying his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He also asks
that his voluntary departure period be either reinstated or
extended.
First, we lack jurisdiction to review the Lozano’s asylum
claim because the BIA adopted the immigration judge’s conclusion
that the application was time-barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-60805
-2-
With regard to Lozano’s eligibility for withholding of removal,
even if we were to assume arguendo that Lozano suffered past
persecution, the facts relied on by the immigration judge
rebutted the presumption of future persecution; Lozano was able
to relocate to different areas of Colombia to avoid reprisal from
the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B). Lozano does not challenge the immigration
judge’s finding in this regard and has therefore waived its
review. See Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n.15 (5th Cir.
1993). In light of the foregoing, the evidence does not compel a
finding that he is entitled to withholding of removal. See Efe
v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).
Similarly, the determination that Lozano is not entitled to
relief under the CAT is supported by substantial evidence. See
Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 353 (5th Cir. 2002).
Again, even if we were to assume arguendo that Lozano was
physically tortured by FARC, the evidence does not support a
determination that the Colombian government or public officials
sanctioned that abuse, which is necessary to establish
eligibility for CAT relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1).
Finally, we decline Lozano’s request to reinstate or extend the
period of voluntary departure. Cf. Bocova v. Gonzales, 412 F.3d
257, 266 (1st Cir. 2005).
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.