Paulos v. Ashcroft ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 22, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60016
Summary Calendar
TEREZA TEWELDE PAULOS,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A78 881 269
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tereza Tewelde Paulos, a native and citizen of Eritrea,
petitions this court for review of a decision by the Board of
Immigration Appeals summarily affirming the Immigration Judge’s
denial of Paulos’s application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158; 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. §§
208.16 - 208.18.
To demonstrate that she is a refugee, Paulos needed to make a
showing of “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on
account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion.”2 An applicant “may qualify as
a refugee either because . . . she has suffered past persecution or
because . . . she has a well-founded fear of future persecution.”3
A finding of past persecution gives rise to a presumption of a
well-founded fear of future persecution; however, that presumption
may be rebutted if a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates
that conditions have changed.4 The IJ determined that Paulos’s
assertions of past persecution on account of a protected ground
were not credible.
Paulos has failed to address the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination in her petition for review and, thus, any challenge
to this determination is waived.5 Even had Paulos challenged the
IJ’s credibility findings, the record does not compel a contrary
2
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).
3
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b).
4
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1).
5
See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003)
(treating as abandoned “issues concerning the merits of his
immigration appeal” since petitioner failed to argue that agency
finding was not supported by substantial evidence); cf. Thuri v.
Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004) (failure to raise CAT
claim in petition for review constitutes waiver).
2
conclusion.6 Consequently, we need not consider the IJ’s
alternative determination that the government had rebutted any
presumption that had been raised as to a well-founded fear of
persecution.
Paulos concedes that she is not eligible for voluntary
departure. Paulos also concedes that as the standards for
withholding of removal and relief under the CAT are higher than the
standard required to obtain asylum, if she fails in her request for
asylum, her requests for withholding of removal and relief under
the CAT likewise fail.
Accordingly, Paulos’s petition for review is DENIED.
6
See Lopez de Jesus v. INS, 312 F.3d 155, 161 (5th Cir. 2002)
(“[S]uch a credibility determination may not be overturned unless
the record compels it.”); Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 905 (5th
Cir. 2002) (“Credibility determinations are given great
deference.”); Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994) (“We
cannot substitute our judgment for that of the BIA or IJ with
respect to the credibility of the witnesses or ultimate factual
findings based on credibility determinations.”).
3