Case ID: f-appx_75/html/0293-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Karla Marcela MEJIA-MERAZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-61061.
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 17, 2003.
    Salvador Colon, Colon & Olvera, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    John Ashcroft, US Department of Justice Civil Division-Appellate Staff, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, William Campbell Erb, Jr., US Department of Justice Civil Division Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, Caryl G. Thompson, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
    Before SMITH, DEMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Karla Marcela Mejia-Meraz, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of deportation. Mejia argues that she established past persecution on account of her political commitment to the plight of the indigenous and on account of her membership in the group of non-indigenous Hondurans who are politically active on behalf of the indigenous.

When, as in this case, the BIA adopts without opinion the IJ’s decision, this court reviews the IJ’s decision. Mikhael v. I.N.S., 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1997). Here, the IJ’s determination that Mejia was ineligible for asylum because Mejia had not shown past persecution on account of any protected ground was supported by substantial evidence, and the evidence presented does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 350 (5th Cir.2002); Girma v. I.N.S., 283 F.3d 664, 669 (5th Cir.2002). Consequently, Mejia has also not made the requisite showing for withholding of removal. Girma, 283 F.3d at 666-67.

Based on the foregoing, Mejia’s petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.