Pauc-Chanez v. Ashcroft

02-60696Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit5 sept. 2003

Texte intégral

*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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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
September 5, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-60696
Summary Calendar
FRANCISCO ARIEL PAUC-CHANEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A78 554 509
Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Francisco Ariel Pauc-Chanez petitions this court to review the
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his
application for withholding of removal. He argues that the
evidence compels a conclusion that he is so eligible. See Chun v.
INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). Pauc, however, has not shown
that all reasonable fact finders would conclude that “it is more

-- 1 of 2 --

2
likely than not” that his life or freedom would be threatened by
persecution on account of either his race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion were
he to be returned to Guatemala. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899,
906 (5th Cir. 2002). He, therefore, has not shown error in the
denial of withholding of removal.
Pauc also assigned as error the Board’s denial of his
application for voluntary departure and the denial of his
application for asylum. Pauc, however, has failed to brief either
of these issue and they are, therefore, waived. See Calderon-
Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986) (issues not
briefed are waived). Moreover, even had Pauc briefed the issue of
the denial of his application for voluntary departure, this court
is without jurisdiction to hear that challenge. 8 U.S.C. §§
1229c(f), 1252(a)(2)(B); Eyoum v. INS, 125 F.3d 889, 891 (5th Cir.
1997).
Pauc’s petition is, therefore,
DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.