Nieto-Nieto v. Ashcroft

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 22, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60170
Summary Calendar
JESUS A. NIETO-NIETO; GLORIA ISABEL
ACEVEDO DE NIETO; JONATHAN NIETO,
Petitioners,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A28-341-748
BIA No. A95-906-366
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jesus Nieto-Nieto (Nieto), a native and citizen of Columbia,
petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (BIA) affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial
of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Gloria
de Nieto (Nieto’s wife), and Jonathon Nieto (Nieto’s son), have
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-60170
-2-
applied as riders on Nieto’s applications. Nieto argues that the
evidence was sufficient to support a finding of past persecution
by guerrilla forces based on his political opinion.
When, as in this case, the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ’s
decision, this court reviews the IJ’s decision. Mikhael v.
I.N.S., 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). The record reflects
that Nieto was persecuted for his failure to provide monetary and
other assistance to Columbian guerrillas rather than for any
personal political view. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 482-83 (1992). The IJ’s determination that Nieto had not
shown that he was persecuted on political grounds is supported by
substantial evidence. See Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d
341, 350 (5th Cir. 2002).
Although Nieto identified the IJ’s denial of his CAT claim,
he fails to address this issue in the body of his brief.
Accordingly, the CAT claim is deemed abandoned. See Calderon-
Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986) (issues not
briefed are waived).
Nieto also argues that the IJ violated his due process
rights by curtailing his testimony at the asylum hearing.
The record reflects that the IJ was instructing counsel to ask
Nieto specific questions. Nieto fails to explain what specific
testimony the IJ precluded him from presenting. Nieto therefore
has not made an initial showing of substantial prejudice with
respect to this claim. See Anwar v. INS, 116 F.3d 140, 144 (5th
Cir. 1997). Nieto’s petition for review is DENIED.