Calixto-Gonzalez 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 11, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60211
Summary Calendar
IVAN CALIXTO-GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A78 961 801
--------------------
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ivan Calixto-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
to deny his application for asylum. Calixto-Gonzalez has waived
the denial of his application for withholding of removal by
failing to assert that denial as a basis for reversal. See
Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n.15 (5th Cir. 1993). This
court will uphold the BIA’s factual finding that an alien is not
eligible for asylum if the determination is supported by
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-60211
-2-
substantial evidence. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th
Cir. 2002). “The substantial evidence standard requires only
that the Board’s conclusion be based upon the evidence presented
and be substantially reasonable.” Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft,
303 F.3d 341, 350 (5th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted). Because the BIA summarily affirmed without
opinion the IJ’s decision, the IJ’s decision is the final agency
determination for judicial review. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(a)(7)(iii); Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832 (5th
Cir. 2003).
Calixto-Gonzalez has failed to make the requisite showing
that he was unable to return to El Salvador “because of
persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A);
see also Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.