Munyandamutsa v. Ashcroft , 84 F. App'x 430 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                                  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    December 30, 2003
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                     Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 03-60140
    Summary Calendar
    JEAN EUDES MUNYANDAMUTSA; MESSERET MUNYANDAMUTSA;
    THEODROS MUNYANDAMUTSA; JOCELYNE MUNYANDAMUTSA,
    Petitioners,
    versus
    JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent.
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Petition for Review of an Order
    of the Board of Immigration Appeals
    BIA Nos. A77-881-489, A77-881-490,
    A77-881-491, A77-881-492
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    The petitioners, Jean Eudes Munyandamutsa (Jean), his wife
    Messeret Munyandamutsa (Messeret), and their children, Theodros
    Munyandamutsa     and    Jocelyne    Munyandamutsa,    whose       claims      are
    dependent upon their parents’ claims, are natives and citizens of
    Rwanda, except for Messeret who was born in what was once a part of
    Ethiopia but which is now in Eritrea.          They request review of the
    decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed
    the   decision    of    the   immigration    judge   (IJ)   to     deny     their
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
    No. 03-60140
    -2-
    application for asylum, withholding of deportation, and relief
    under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).           We review only the
    BIA’s decision except to the extent that the BIA adopted the IJ’s
    decision. See Beltran-Resendez v. INS, 
    207 F.3d 284
    , 286 (5th Cir.
    2000).
    Jean has failed to show that the evidence compels a conclusion
    different from the conclusion reached by the IJ and the BIA that
    any mistreatment of Jean did not rise to the level of either
    persecution or torture and that the mistreatment was the result of
    a   personal   property   dispute   and   not   “on   account   of”   Jean’s
    ethnicity or political opinion.      See Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 
    73 F.3d 579
    , 582-84 (5th Cir. 1996) (mistreatment neither severe nor on
    account of protected factor); Fleurinor v. INS, 
    585 F.2d 129
    ,
    132-34 (5th Cir. 1978) (mistreatment not at level of persecution);
    see also Efe v. Ashcroft, 
    293 F.3d 899
    , 907 (5th Cir. 2002) (“CAT
    does not require persecution, but the higher bar of torture.”); 
    8 C.F.R. § 208.16
    (c)(2)(defining torture).
    Messeret likewise failed to show that any inconvenience she
    faced in Ethiopia or any mistreatment she might face in either
    Ethiopia or Rwanda amounted to persecution or torture.            See Efe,
    
    293 F.3d at 907
    ; Abdel-Masieh, 
    73 F.3d at 582, 584
    ; Fleurinor, 
    585 F.2d at 132-34
    .
    The petition for review is DENIED.
    PETITION DENIED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-60140

Citation Numbers: 84 F. App'x 430

Judges: Barksdale, Dennis, Emilio, Garza, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 12/30/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/1/2023