Cubas v. Ashcroft , 117 F. App'x 369 ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 4, 2005
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-61013
Summary Calendar
MARCOS WASHINGTON CUBAS; MARIA DE CARMEN
MONSALVE DE CUBAS; MARIE ELLA CUBAS,
Petitioners,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A29 387 824
BIA No. A39 387 831
BIA No. A29 387 833
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Marcos Washington Cubas, his wife, Maria De Carmen
Monsalve De Cubas, and their daughter, Marie Ella Cubas, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) opinion
that affirmed the decision of the immigration judge denying Cubas
asylum and withholding of removal.
The Cubases argues that the immigration judge’s finding that
Cubas failed to demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-61013
-2-
fear of future persecution is not supported by substantial
evidence in light of his testimony and the evidence he submitted
at the immigration hearing. We review the immigration judge’s
decision because the BIA summarily affirmed the immigration
judge’s decision, thereby making it the final agency decision.
See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832 (5th Cir. 2003). We
will uphold the immigration judge’s determination that Cuba is
not eligible for asylum if it is supported by substantial
evidence. Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994). To
reverse the immigration judge’s determination that Cubas is not
eligible for asylum, he must demonstrate the evidence was so
compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against
it. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). Cubas has
failed to make the requisite showing. Accordingly, the petition
for review is DENIED.