Munyandamutsa, et al 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
December 30, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-60140
Summary Calendar
JEAN EUDES MUNYANDAMUTSA; MESSERET MUNYANDAMUTSA;
THEODROS MUNYANDAMUTSA; JOCELYNE MUNYANDAMUTSA,
Petitioners,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - -
Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA Nos. A77-881-489, A77-881-490,
A77-881-491, A77-881-492
- - - - - - - - - -
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The petitioners, Jean Eudes Munyandamutsa (Jean), his wife
Messeret Munyandamutsa (Messeret), and their children, Theodros
Munyandamutsa and Jocelyne Munyandamutsa, whose claims are
dependent upon their parents’ claims, are natives and citizens of
Rwanda, except for Messeret who was born in what was once a part of
Ethiopia but which is now in Eritrea. They request review of the
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed
the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) to deny their

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-60140
-2-
application for asylum, withholding of deportation, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review only the
BIA’s decision except to the extent that the BIA adopted the IJ’s
decision. See Beltran-Resendez v. INS, 207 F.3d 284, 286 (5th Cir.
2000).
Jean has failed to show that the evidence compels a conclusion
different from the conclusion reached by the IJ and the BIA that
any mistreatment of Jean did not rise to the level of either
persecution or torture and that the mistreatment was the result of
a personal property dispute and not “on account of” Jean’s
ethnicity or political opinion. See Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d
579, 582-84 (5th Cir. 1996) (mistreatment neither severe nor on
account of protected factor); Fleurinor v. INS, 585 F.2d 129,
132-34 (5th Cir. 1978) (mistreatment not at level of persecution);
see also Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir. 2002) (“CAT
does not require persecution, but the higher bar of torture.”); 8
C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2)(defining torture).
Messeret likewise failed to show that any inconvenience she
faced in Ethiopia or any mistreatment she might face in either
Ethiopia or Rwanda amounted to persecution or torture. See Efe,
293 F.3d at 907; Abdel-Masieh, 73 F.3d at 582, 584; Fleurinor, 585
F.2d at 132-34.
The petition for review is DENIED.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --