Vaso v. Gonzales , 183 F. App'x 438 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 30, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60363
Summary Calendar
LEONARO VASO, also known as Leonard Vaso;
KELA VASO; KATERINA VASO,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
No. A96 292 404
No. A96 292 405
No. A96 292 406
--------------------
Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Leonaro Vaso, Kela Vaso, and Katerina Vaso, natives and citi-
zens of Albania, petition for review of the decisions of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the im-
migration judge (“IJ”) denying their applications for asylum, with-
holding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-60363
-2-
(“CAT”). They argue that the IJ erroneously determined that
Leonard Vaso’s asylum application was untimely, and they contend
that he was entitled to withholding of removal and relief under the
CAT because he has been persecuted in Albania on account of his
political opinion.
Because the BIA relied on the IJ’s determination that the asy-
lum application was untimely, we lack jurisdiction to review the
denial of asylum. Cf. Zhu v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 521, 528 (5th Cir.
2004)(in which the BIA did not indicate whether it was affirming
the timeliness decision, the merits decision, or both). The record
reveals that Leonard Vaso was subject to harassment that does not
rise to the level of persecution. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d
182, 188 (5th Cir. 2004). The BIA’s determination affirming the
denial of withholding of removal and relief under the CAT is sup-
ported by substantial evidence, and the record does not compel a
contrary conclusion. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th
Cir. 2002); Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994).
The petition for review is DENIED.