Leonov v. Ashcroft

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS February 20, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60175
Summary Calendar
ALEXEI LEONOV
Petitioner
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT, US ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A71 495 769
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alexei Leonov petitions this court for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) decision denying his applications
for asylum and withholding of removal. We hold that the BIA’s
determination that Leonov had not demonstrated past persecution
or a well-founded fear of future persecution is supported by
substantial evidence and, therefore, that he is ineligible for
asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a), (b); Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft,
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-60175
-2-
263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). Because Leonov has failed
to satisfy the requirements for asylum, he has also failed to
satisfy the requirements for withholding of deportation under
the Immigration and Nationality Act. See Girma v. INS, 283 F.3d
664, 667 (5th Cir. 2002). Leonov has failed to brief the issue
whether he is eligible for withholding under the Convention
Against Torture, and it is therefore waived. See
Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986).
Insofar as Leonov contends that the Lautenberg Amendment
should be afforded evidentiary weight regarding the persecution
of Jews in Russia, we find that the BIA did acknowledge that
legislation when evaluating the evidence in his case. Finally,
Leonov argues that 8 C.F.R. § 208.13 should be construed to
afford him the same procedural benefits afforded Russian Jews
under the Lautenberg Amendment to avoid an equal protection
problem. However, even if that lowered standard were applied to
his case, he has not shown “a credible basis for concern about
the possibility of [] persecution.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1157 note.
PETITION DENIED.