UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Fifth Circuit
_____________________________________
No. 95-60142
Summary Calendar
_____________________________________
ANGEL EFRAIN CAMPOS LAIVA,
Petitioner,
VERSUS
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
______________________________________________________
Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(A73-221-511)
______________________________________________________
(October 23, 1995)
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Petitioner challenges a BIA order denying asylum and
withholding deportation. We affirm.
I.
Angel Efrain Campos Laiva is a nineteen-year-old male from
Puerto Triumfo, El Salvador who entered the United States without
inspection on August 29, 1994. The Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) issued an order to show cause why Campos Laiva should
not be deported. After a deportation hearing, the immigration
1
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
judge (IJ) found Campos Laiva deportable and asked him if he wanted
to apply for asylum. Campos Laiva indicated that he wished to do
so, and the IJ scheduled a hearing.
After a hearing on the asylum application, the IJ determined
that Campos Laiva had failed to prove either past persecution or a
well-founded fear of future persecution. He was, therefore,
ineligible for asylum or withholding of deportation. Campos Laiva
appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA
reviewed the record de novo and adopted the IJ's legal analysis and
conclusions. Campos Laiva timely filed a petition for review of
the BIA's order.
The only issue before us is whether the BIA's determination
that the petitioner is ineligible for asylum or withholding of
deportation is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) (1970); Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188
(5th Cir. 1994). When the BIA adopts the IJ's conclusions and
analysis, we review the IJ's decision as well. See Chun v. INS, 40
F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). This court will not reverse the
factual determinations unless the evidence is so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of
persecution. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992).
With respect to his asylum claim, Campos Laiva asserted that
he feared he would be subjected to persecution for his political
beliefs and practices if he were returned to his native El
Salvador.
Campos Laiva testified that he had been threatened because of
2
his political affiliation. During the month leading up to the
Puerto Triumfo mayoral elections, he distributed campaign
propaganda for the ARENA party's candidate, who was seeking
reelection. Campos Laiva testified that during that period members
of the FMLN party2 threatened and insulted him. He also received
an anonymous note stating that he should withdraw from the ARENA
party or face the consequences. He attributed that message to the
FMLN.
Moreover, Campos Laiva believes that this note led to his
uncle's shooting. Around the time of the election, his uncle, also
a member of the Arena party, was badly wounded. Just before he was
shot, Campos Laiva's uncle had a conversation with FMLN party
coordinator. Campos Laiva believes, but cannot be sure, that this
discussion concerned the threatening note. At the hearing,
however, Campos Laiva admitted that he had not heard the
conversation and did not actually know who shot his uncle. He also
conceded that he knew of no other ARENA party members in Puerto
Triumfo who were targeted by the FMLN during this election.
Campos Laiva remained in Puerto Triumfo for approximately two
months after his uncle was shot. He then spent three months in San
Salvador before coming to the United States. He received no
further threats and had no other problems with the FMLN during this
five month period. Moreover, the ARENA party of which he is a
2
The FMLN is a left-wing group formerly engaged in armed
guerilla warfare against the El Salvadoran government and the
right-wing ARENA party that controlled it. The FMLN was
legalized by the 1992 peace accord which ended El Salvador's long
civil war.
3
member continues to control El Salvador.
A review of the record indicates that substantial evidence
supports the BIA's determination that Campos Laiva established
neither past persecution nor a well-founded fear of future
persecution. See Rojas v. INS, 937 F.2d 186, 189-90 (5th Cir.
1991). Therefore, we decline to disturb the BIA's determination
that Campos Laiva was not eligible for political asylum.
II.
As Campos Laiva cannot make the "well-founded fear of
persecution" showing required for asylum, there is no need to
address his claim that deportation should be withheld. The latter
standard is higher and requires a deportee to demonstrate a "clear
probability of persecution." Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 750 (5th
Cir. 1994). We decline to disturb the BIA's determination that
Campos Laiva was not eligible for withholding of deportation.
AFFIRMED.
4