Guzman-Barrios v. INS ( 1996 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-60649
Summary Calendar
__________________
BERTA JULIETA GUZMAN-BARRIOS; CARLOS
HUMBERTO CATALAN-GUSMAN; CELIA FERNANDA
CATALAN-GUSMAN; EDGAR ROLANDO CATALAN-BARRIOS,
Petitioners,
versus
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - -
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
A72 409 075
A29 415 720
A29 415 721
A29 415 722
- - - - - - - - - -
July 1, 1996
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Berta Julieta Guzman-Barrios (Berta) and her children,
Carlos Humberto Catalan-Gusman, Celia Fernanda Catalan-Gusman,
and Edgar Rolando Catalan-Barrios, petition for review of the
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 95-60649
-2-
Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) order denying the petitions
for asylum and suspension of deportation.
In challenging the asylum ruling, the petitioners argue that
the BIA ignored the enormous amount of circumstantial evidence
and improperly focused on certain facts in the record. They
contend that the past activities of Berta's husband, brother,
sister, and deceased brother-in-law have been imputed on Berta by
the Guatemalan government and that if she and her children return
to Guatemala, they will be subjected to further persecution. The
evidence of record does not compel a contrary conclusion than
that reached by the BIA, and there is substantial evidence to
support the BIA's findings. See Ozdemir v. INS, 46 F.3d 6, 7-8
(5th Cir. 1994).
In challenging the BIA's ruling on Berta's application for
suspension of deportation, Berta argues that the BIA erred in
viewing her two absences from the United States as constituting
meaningful interruption of her continuous physical presence in
this country. There is substantial evidence to support the BIA's
finding. Cf. Rodriguez-Gutierrez v. INS, 59 F.3d 504, 507 (5th
Cir. 1995). Because the issue was neither raised by petitioners
in the administrative proceedings nor addressed by the BIA in its
ruling, we do not consider the petitioners' arguments concerning
the applicability of the ABC Settlement Agreement pursuant to
American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D.
No. 95-60649
-3-
Cal. 1991). See Miranda-Lores v. INS, 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir.
1994).
The petition for review is DENIED.