Mukarukiidi v. Ashcroft

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 16, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60668
Summary Calendar
AGNES MUKARUKIIDI,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A76 308 518
Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Agnes Mukarukiidi petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration
Judge’s (IJ’s) decision to deny her applications for asylum and
withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA), cancellation of removal, and her claim for withholding of
removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). She argues
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
that she is entitled to cancellation of removal because her
children would suffer atypical hardship if she were removed from
this country. She argues that she is entitled to asylum and
withholding of removal because she will be subjected to persecution
and torture based on her father’s political activities if she is
returned to Uganda.
This court does not have jurisdiction to review the IJ’s
discretionary determination that Mukarukiidi’s children would not
suffer an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if
Mukarukiidi were deported to Uganda. See 8 U.S.C. §
1229b(b)(1)(D); 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Bravo v. Ashcroft, 341
F.3d 590, 592 (5th Cir. 2003). This court likewise lacks
jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination that Mukarukiidi’s
asylum application was untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3).
Mukarukiidi’s petition for review is thus DISMISSED as to her
claims concerning cancellation of removal and asylum.
This court will uphold a factual finding that an alien is not
eligible for withholding of removal if that finding is supported by
substantial evidence. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78-79 (5th Cir.
1994). The substantial evidence standard requires that the
decision be based on the evidence presented and that the decision
be substantially reasonable. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d
194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). The decision will be affirmed unless the
“evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Id.
2
The BIA’s decisions concerning Mukarukiidi’s claims for
withholding of removal are supported by substantial evidence, and
the record does not compel a contrary conclusion as to either her
INA claim or her CAT claim. Accordingly, Mukarukiidi’s petition
for review is DENIED as to her claims for withholding of removal.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART
3