Salazar-Trivino v. Gonzales , 145 F. App'x 90 ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 6, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60843
Summary Calendar
GABRIEL ANTONIO SALAZAR-TRIVINO; MARIA DELPILAR
ORTIZ LA ROTTA; GABRIEL N. SALAZAR ORTIZ; ADRIANA D.
SALAZAR ORTIZ; MARIA ALEXANDRA SALAZAR ORTIZ,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A79 512 420
BIA No. A79 512 421
BIA No. A79 512 422
BIA No. A79 512 423
BIA No. A79 512 424
--------------------
Before JONES, WIENER, AND DEMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioners Gabriel Antonio Salazar-Trivino, his wife, and his
three minor children (collectively, “Petitioners,”) all natives and
citizens of Colombia, petition for review of an order from the
Board of Immigration Appeals, affirming, without opinion, the
immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of an application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Torture (“CAT”). Petitioners claim that the BIA violated its own
regulations by affirming the IJ’s decision without opinion. As we
have reviewed the IJ’s decision and found no error, this argument
is unavailing. See Garcia-Melendez v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 657,
662-63 (5th Cir. 2003).
Petitions also contend that the IJ erroneously concluded that
Salazar was not credible and erroneously failed to find persecution
and a well-founded fear of persecution on account of political
opinion. Petitioners’ cursory argument challenging the credibility
determination is conclusional, fails to cite to the record, and is
inadequately briefed. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25
(5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,
813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9).
Further, we conclude from our review of the record that the IJ’s
decision denying relief is supported by substantial evidence and
that the record evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion.
See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). Petitioners have
not briefed separate claims for relief under the CAT, so those
claims are deemed abandoned. See Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414
n.15 (5th Cir. 1993); Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th
Cir. 1994).
Finally, Petitioners insist that the requirement of INA §
240B(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b), that an alien be present in the
United States for at least one year to be eligible for post-hearing
voluntary removal, violates equal protection. We agree with the
2
Government that one rational basis for the statute is to permit
aliens with at least one year’s presence in the United States to
settle their affairs before departing because such aliens are more
likely to have accumulated sufficient interests to warrant the time
afforded by voluntary departure. See Tovar-Landin v. Ashcroft, 361
F.3d 1164, 1167 (9th Cir. 2004); Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414
(5th Cir. 1993).
PETITION DENIED.
3