Allmeta 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
March 13, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-60941
Summary Calendar
NAIM ALLMETA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A95 903 618
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Naim Allmeta appeals from the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ)
denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Allmeta argues that the IJ erroneously concluded that he
failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of
future persecution warranting asylum. He also argues that the
case should be remanded because the IJ did not address his claim
for relief under the CAT. Finally, he asks this court to extend

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-60941
-2-
his grant of voluntary departure during the pendency of appellate
review.
Because Allmeta has failed to show that the evidence is so
compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against
the IJ’s determination that he is not entitled to asylum, we must
affirm that finding. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194,
197 (5th Cir. 1996). Because he does not specifically challenge
the IJ’s denial of his request for withholding of removal, that
issue is deemed abandoned. See Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809
F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986).
The IJ’s consideration of Allmeta’s CAT claim was
sufficient. See Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 140 (5th Cir.
2004). Accordingly, there is no need to remand the case for
further consideration. Allmeta’s request for an extension of
voluntary departure, assuming we have the authority to consider
it, is denied. See Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 169, 171-
72 (5th Cir. 2005).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --