Flores-Linares v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 15, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60745
Summary Calendar
ELGAR DAVID FLORES-LINARES,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A95 663 642
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Elgar David Flores-Linares (Flores) petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the
decision of the immigration judge (IJ) to deny his applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). Flores was smuggled from Guatemala into the
United States and then was kidnaped by his smugglers. He
cooperated with law enforcement authorities after he was kidnaped
by providing testimony against the smugglers.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-60745
-2-
The IJ determined that Flores had not established that he had
a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his race,
religion, nationality, membership in any particular social group,
or his political opinion. The IJ also determined that Flores had
not established that the smugglers he testified against posed
a nationwide threat. The IJ found that it would be reasonable for
Flores to relocate within Guatemala. The BIA affirmed the result
of the IJ’s decision without opinion, thereby making the IJ’s
decision the final agency determination. See 8 C.F.R. §
1003.1(e)(4).
Flores contends that the IJ erred in his finding that he could
avoid future persecution by relocating to another part of
Guatemala. Flores notes that Guatemala is a small country, and he
argues that it would not be reasonable to expect him to relocate
because he is only 17 years of age. He contends that his only
family members live in Guatemala City.
Flores did not show past persecution and did not demonstrate
that the national government was the persecutor. It was therefore
his burden to show that the persecution was not geographically
limited in such a way that relocation within his country of origin
would be unreasonable. See Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442,
444 (5th Cir. 2001).
The record evidence in this case indicates that Flores
testified against a group of smugglers who were based in Mexico or
in the United States, rather than in Guatemala. Flores has pointed
No. 05-60745
-3-
to no evidence indicating that this group poses a nationwide threat
in Guatemala. The record also reflects that, aside from his
immediate family, Flores has close relatives in Guatemala,
including aunts and uncles.
In view of the above, the IJ’s determinations regarding
Flores’s ability to safely relocate within Guatemala are supported
by substantial evidence, and Flores has failed to meet his burden
to show that the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to that
reached by the IJ. Accordingly, we will not disturb the denial of
asylum. See Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005);
Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 304-06 (5th Cir. 1997). We do not
reach Flores’s argument that, as a member of the group of smuggled
Guatemalans who have provided testimony against their smugglers, he
is subject to persecution on account of his membership in a
particular social group.
Flores has waived any issue concerning his claim for
withholding of removal and his claim for relief under the CAT by
failing to brief them. See Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n.15
(5th Cir. 1993).
Flores’s petition for review is DENIED.