Tzoc-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft , 79 F. App'x 729 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 6, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-61067
Summary Calendar
GILBERTO CESAR TZOC-GUTIERREZ;
BLANCA MARICEL ZELAYA-ALVARADO;
LUIS GILBERT TZOC-ZELAYA,
Petitioners,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of An Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA Nos. A77 799 254
A77 799 255
A77 799 256
Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gilberto Cesar Tzoc-Gutierrez (Tzoc), his wife, Blanca Maricel
Zelaya-Alvardo, and their son, Luis Gilbert Tzoc-Zelaya, petition
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
summarily affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision to deny
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
their applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
Petitioners contend that the BIA’s decision offered no specific
reasons for upholding the IJ’s decision and, therefore, was
insufficient to deny relief and to provide a basis for this court’s
review. We have previously held that the BIA’s summary affirmance
procedures do not deprive the court of a basis for judicial review
and do not violate due process. Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d
830, 832-33 (5th Cir. 2003). Therefore, the petitioner’s argument
is foreclosed.
Petitioners also contend that any mixed motivation to harm
Tzoc should have been construed in their favor and that the IJ
erred in concluding that Tzoc could have relocated within
Guatemala. These issues lack merit and in any event were not
raised before the BIA and hence have not been administratively
exhausted. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir.
2001).
Finally, petitioners assert that the BIA’s decision was not
supported by substantial evidence. After reviewing the record and
the briefs, we conclude that the decision is supported by
substantial evidence and that the evidence in the record does not
compel a contrary conclusion. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299,
302-04 (5th Cir. 1997); Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir.
1994); Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, the petition for review is
2
DENIED.
3