Machado-Artola v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT July 10, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60200
Summary Calendar
MELVIN RAMIRO MACHADO-ARTOLA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(A78-942-147)
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Melvin Ramiro Machado-Artola petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming denial of asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT). He claims: substantial evidence does not support
the immigration judge’s (IJ) finding he was not persecuted on
account of either his membership in a particular social group or
his political opinion and was ineligible for relief under the CAT;
and the IJ abused his discretion in excluding unauthenticated,
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
foreign documents under 8 C.F.R. § 287.6 (detailing the standards
for admission of foreign documents as evidence). Because the BIA
adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, that decision is the final
agency determination for judicial review. E.g., Mikhael v. INS,
115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Machado
was not persecuted on account of either his membership in a
particular social group or his political opinion. See Lopez-Gomez
v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444-45 (5th Cir. 2001). Assuming
arguendo “whistleblowers” can constitute the requisite particular
social group for asylum purposes, the evidence does not compel a
finding Machado was persecuted because he blew the whistle on his
persecutors. It, instead, supports a conclusion that he was
persecuted based on a personal dispute. Additionally, Machado has
failed to provide compelling evidence that his persecutors were
motivated by the alleged political aspects of his refusal to
cooperate with the fraudulent timber scheme at issue; instead, it
reflects they were interested in only the scheme’s economic
potential. See Ontunez-Tursios, 303 F.3d 341, 352 (5th Cir. 2002).
Machado did not make the showing required to establish
eligibility for asylum. Accordingly, he cannot meet the more
stringent standard for establishing eligibility for withholding of
removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).
2
Machado has failed to brief whether he is entitled to relief
under the CAT. Therefore, that claim is waived. See Rodriguez v.
INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n.15 (5th Cir. 1993).
Finally, Machado has failed to show that he was substantially
prejudiced by the exclusion of unauthenticated, foreign documents.
As a result, we do not decide the issue whether they were properly
excluded. See Molina v. Sewell, 983 F.2d 676, 678 (5th Cir. 1993).
DENIED
3