Aquino 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
August 21, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-60605
Summary Calendar
BLANCA LIDIA AQUINO,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A74-708-338
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Blanca Lidia Aquino, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (BIA) affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial
of her applications for political asylum and withholding of
deportation. Aquino argues that the evidence was sufficient to
support a finding of past persecution and a well-founded fear of
persecution based on her “imputed” political opinion. She
further asserts that the BIA’s “boilerplate decision” was

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 02-60605
-2-
improper, that customary principals of international law apply to
her case, and that the BIA abused its discretion in failing to
consider proposed regulations that allegedly authorize asylum
relief to victims of domestic violence.
When, as in this case, the BIA adopts without opinion the
IJ’s decision, this court reviews the IJ’s decision. Mikhael v.
I.N.S., 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). Here, the IJ’s
determination that Aquino had not shown past persecution or a
well-founded fear of future persecution if returned to Guatemala
was supported by substantial evidence. See Ontunez-Tursios v.
Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 350 (5th Cir. 2002); Gomez-Mejia v.
I.N.S., 56 F.3d 700, 702 (5th Cir. 1995).
Aquino’s argument that the BIA’s summary affirmance was
improper lacks merit. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830,
832-33 (5th Cir. 2003). Similarly, Aquino’s claim that she
should be granted a temporary safe haven in this country fails
since international law does not apply where, as here, there is
controlling legislation. See Gisbert v. United States Attorney
Gen., 988 F.2d 1437, 1447 (5th Cir. 1993). This court lacks
jurisdiction to consider Aquino’s asylum/domestic violence
argument since she failed to present it to the BIA and, thus,
failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to
that claim. See Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 (5th Cir.
1993).

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 02-60605
-3-
For the foregoing reasons, Aquino’s petition for review is
DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --