United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 7, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-61051
Summary Calendar
DANIEL GHEBREMARIAM WOLDU,
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 881 271
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Daniel Ghebremariam Woldu, a native and citizen of Eritrea,
petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ)
denial of his application for asylum. Woldu contends that the
BIA’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence because
he established past persecution and a well-founded fear of future
persecution.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-61051
-2-
Woldu does not challenge the denial of his application for
withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against
Torture. Therefore, these issues are waived. See Thuri v.
Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004). Further, the BIA’s
determination that Woldu failed to establish past persecution is
supported by substantial evidence, and the record does not compel
a contrary conclusion. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 304
(5th Cir. 1997).
However, in considering Woldu’s well-founded fear of
persecution claim, the IJ relied on Woldu’s past treatment in
Eritrea to support his determination that there was no basis for
Woldu’s alleged fear of future persecution. Further, the IJ and
BIA failed to address relevant evidence presented by Woldu to
support this claim. Therefore, the BIA’s decision fails to
reflect meaningful consideration of all the relevant and
substantial evidence supporting Woldu’s fear of future
persecution claim. See Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 584-85
(5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the petition for review is
GRANTED, the BIA’s removal order is VACATED, and the case is
REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion. This court does not, however, intimate what conclusion
the BIA should reach on remand.
In light of the foregoing, Woldu’s motion for a stay of
removal is DENIED AS MOOT.