Seifu v. Ashcroft , 80 F. App'x 323 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 3, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60142
Summary Calendar
HELEN SEIFU,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A78 583 025
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Helen Seifu has filed a petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) summary decision denying her appeal
from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying her application
for asylum and withholding of removal. Seifu contends that she
will be subjected to persecution on the basis of her gender and
that relief is warranted by her prior subjection to female
genital mutilation.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-60142
-2-
The record does not contain significant evidence which would
compel a finding that “a reasonable person in [Seifu’s]
circumstances would fear persecution.” See Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d
747, 749 (5th Cir. 1994). As a married woman whose husband has
been deported and who has already been subjected to female
genital mutilation, the danger to Seifu of marital rape, wife-
beating, female genital mutilation, and abduction as a form of
marriage is attenuated. Further, the act of female genital
mutilation is unfortunately the very fundamental change required
to rebut the presumption of persecution created by the showing of
past persecution. Though the threat of employment discrimination
and general gender-based persecution may remain real, the
decision to deny asylum is not substantially unreasonable. See
Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996).
PETITION DENIED.