Montilla v. Gonzales , 204 F. App'x 508 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
December 14, 2006
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-61056
Summary Calendar
MIGUEL ALBERT MONTILLA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A75 728 636
----------------------------------------------------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Miguel Albert Montilla has filed a petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals denying him asylum or withholding of removal. For purposes of the instant petition, the
immigration judge’s decision is the final agency determination for judicial review. See
Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 348 (5th Cir. 2002). We will uphold the factual finding
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
that an alien is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal if that finding is supported by
substantial evidence. Gomez-Mejia v. INS, 56 F.3d 700, 702 (5th Cir. 1995).
Montilla argues that the immigration judge failed to explain why asylum was not warranted in his
case. Alternatively, he argues that the immigration judge failed to support her adverse decision
regarding persecution. This argument fails, however, because the immigration judge’s decision
reflects meaningful consideration of the relevant substantial evidence supporting Montilla’s claims.
See Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1996) (addressing requirement that an alien
receive “full and fair consideration” of his claims).
Montilla also argues that the three or four telephone calls he received were sufficient to establish
persecution because they “were in fact direct and unequivocal threats that [he] would be killed.”
Although threats of violence may be sufficient to support a finding of persecution, see Tamara-
Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 346-49 & n.8 (5th Cir. 2006), Montilla’s assertion that he
produced direct evidence of specific death threats by the police is not supported by the record.
Finally, because the immigration judge found no persecution, she did not err in failing to evaluate
whether there was a nexus between the alleged persecution and one of the five statutory grounds for
asylum. Cf. Tamara-Gomez, 447 F.3d at 349 (addressing nexus after finding persecution).
Montilla does not challenge the BIA’s conclusion that he was not eligible for the withholding
of removal. Accordingly, he has waived any such argument. See Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414
n.15 (5th Cir. 1993).
PETITION DENIED.
-2-