DocketNumber： 09-60746
Judges： Jolly, Wiener, Elrod
Filed Date： 7/2/2010
Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 11/5/2024
Case: 09-60746 Document: 00511162106 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/02/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 2, 2010 No. 09-60746 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk GELMIL H. BARRIOS, Petitioner v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A070 431 236 Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Petitioner Gelmil H. Barrios petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) determination that he is not entitled to withholding of removal. Barrios contends that he is entitled to withholding of removal because of past persecution and the likelihood of future persecution on account of his political opinion, membership in a particular social group, and religion. Barrios presented evidence that he left Guatemala because of the violence caused by the guerillas and the kidnapping of his uncle. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. Case: 09-60746 Document: 00511162106 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/02/2010 No. 09-60746 Barrios did not present religion and membership in a particular social group as bases for withholding of removal to the BIA. Therefore, he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to these issues, and we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Wang v. Ashcroft,260 F.3d 448
, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001). Barrios has not shown past persecution or the likelihood of future persecution on account of his political opinion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,502 U.S. 478
, 482-83 (1992); Jukic v. INS,40 F.3d 747
, 749 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Barrios is not entitled to withholding of removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft,293 F.3d 899
, 903 (5th Cir. 2002). The petition for review is DENIED. 2