Us-Hernandez v. Ashcroft

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 2, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-60476
Summary Calendar
LAURO RICARDO US-HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A73 113 600
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lauro Ricardo Us-Hernandez (Us-Hernandez), a Guatemalan
citizen, petitions for review of the final order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirming the immigration
judge’s (IJ) decision to deny his application for asylum. Us-
Hernandez argues that he was persecuted based on the political
opinion imputed to him by the guerillas who attacked him after he
did not pay them the money they demanded. He notes that his
mother and brother were subsequently threatened and abused by
guerillas after he left the country and even after they relocated

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-60476
-2-
within Guatemala. He contends that he has a well-founded fear of
future persecution based on his family’s experiences, including a
shooting attack on his brother that occurred shortly after the
1996 Peace Accords were signed. Us-Hernandez’s mother and
brother relocated after the shooting, and Us-Hernandez testified
that he was not aware of any problems occurring after this move.
After reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude that
the IJ’s decision as adopted by the BIA is supported by
substantial evidence and that the record evidence does not compel
a contrary conclusion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
481, 482-83 (1992); Campos-Guardado v. INS, 809 F.2d 285, 289-90
(5th Cir. 1987); see also Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442,
445 (5th Cir. 2001). The petition for review is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --