Summary Calendar ROBERT OKELLO OYWELLO, JULIET IGA OYWELLO v. Alberto Rgonzales, Us Attorney General

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
April 19, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-60170
Summary Calendar
ROBERT OKELLO OYWELLO, JULIET IGA OYWELLO
Petitioners
v.
ALBERTO R GONZALES, US ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A29 905 967
BIA No. A75 374 249
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Okello Oywello (“Robert”) and Juliet Iga Oywello
(“Juliet”), citizens of Uganda, petition this court to review the
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the
denial of Juliet’s application for asylum and withholding of
removal. Robert, Juliet’s husband, was included as an ancillary
beneficiary to her asylum application. Robert also filed a
separate application for cancellation of removal, which was
denied by the immigration judge (“IJ”) and affirmed by the BIA.

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 03-60170
-2-
Juliet argues that she testified credibly regarding “severe
and atrocious past persecution” in Uganda. She further argues
that her credible testimony established that she is unwilling to
return to Uganda due to a well-founded fear of future
persecution. The IJ’s finding that Juliet was not credible is a
reasonable interpretation of the record and therefore supported
by substantial evidence. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th
Cir. 1994). Furthermore, the IJ’s determination that, due to
changed country conditions, Juliet does not have a well-founded
fear of future persecution due to her human rights activities is
also supported by substantial evidence. See Mikhael v. INS, 115
F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). Because the IJ found correctly
that Juliet failed to make the requisite showing for asylum, he
also was correct in finding that she could not meet the more
stringent standard for proving her eligibility for withholding of
removal. See Girma v. INS, 283 F.3d 664, 666-67 (5th Cir. 2002).
Juliet has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies
with respect to her Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) claim.
She also has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with
respect to her claim that the BIA abused its discretion in not
considering “the likelihood of torture and hardship” on her 22-
month-old United States citizen child for purposes of asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. Thus, this
court lacks jurisdiction to review the claims. See 8 U.S.C.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 03-60170
-3-
§ 1252(d)(1); Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir.
2001).
Robert challenges the IJ’s determination that he failed to
meet the hardship requirement for cancellation of removal.
However, this court does not have jurisdiction to review the IJ’s
discretionary determination, in rejecting Robert’s application
for cancellation of removal, that Robert had not shown that his
22 month old United States citizen son would suffer an
“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” See Rueda v.
Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir. 2004); 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED IN PART and
DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

-- 3 of 3 --