Godinez, et al v. Holder
Filing
920090501
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
No. 08-60492 Summary Calendar May 1, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
ROBERTO CARLOS GODINEZ; MIRNA GODINEZ Petitioner v. ERIC H HOLDER, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA Nos. A72 521 694; A79 536 026
Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Petitioners Roberto Carlos Godinez and Mirna Godinez seek review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing their appeal in which they challenged the Immigration Judge's denial of their requests for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and voluntary departure. They contend that the BIA erred in denying Roberto's asylum claim because he established a well-founded
Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.
*
No. 08-60492 fear that if he were removed to El Salvador, he would be persecuted on the basis of his political opinion regarding the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front. The Godinezes do not challenge the BIA's ruling affirming the denial of withholding of removal, cancellation of removal, relief under the CAT, or voluntary departure. They have therefore abandoned these issues. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). We review factual findings of the BIA for substantial evidence and may not reverse its factual findings "unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). The petitioners have the burden of proving the compelling nature of the evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). The Godinezes have failed to establish that any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that Roberto has a well-founded fear of persecution. See § 1252(b)(4)(B); Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 904 (5th Cir. 2002). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?