Van Der Westhuizen, et al v. Gonzales

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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
October 7, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-60910
Summary Calendar
HERMANUS DANIEL VAN DER WESTHUIZEN; MARIA ELIZABETH VAN DER
WESTHUIZEN; HERMANUS JOHANNES VAN DER WESTHUIZEN; JACOLIZE
VAN DER WESTHUIZEN; FOURIE MATHYS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A96 272 031
BIA No. A96 272 032
BIA No. A96 272 033
BIA No. A96 272 034
BIA No. A96 272 035
--------------------
Before JONES, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Hermanus Daniel Van Der Westhuizen, his wife Maria, and his
three children, Hermanus, Jacolize, and Fourie, petition this court
to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
denying relief on their application for asylum and withholding of
removal. The Van Der Westhuizens have not briefed the BIA’s denial
of relief under the Convention Against Torture, and that claim is

-- 1 of 2 --

2
deemed abandoned. See Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n.15 (5th
Cir. 1993); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
As to the asylum application, the Van Der Westhuizens
challenge the BIA’s determination that their application was
untimely under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2). This court lacks
jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that the asylum
application was untimely. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3).
The Van Der Westhuizens argue that the BIA erred in denying
their application for withholding of removal. The BIA’s
determination is supported by substantial evidence, and the record
does not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s finding that the
Van Der Westhuizens have not met their burden to establish an
entitlement to withholding of removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft,
293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002); 8 C.F.R.§ 208.16(b).
The petition for review is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --