Case ID: f-appx_124/html/0912-02.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

Iban PARAMERO-TORRES, Petitioner v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-60333.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided March 30, 2005.
    Donglai Yang, The Law Offices of Donglai Yang, New Orleans, LA, for Petitioner.
    
      Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    John Ashcroft, Luis Enrique Perez, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Iban Paramero-Torres has filed a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order, denying him withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Because the BIA did not adopt the immigration judge’s decision, but issued its own decision, this court reviews the decision of the BIA. See Girma v. INS, 283 F.3d 664, 666 (5th Cir.2002). Accordingly, Paramero’s arguments that the immigration judge erred in its adverse credibility determination and erred in failing to address his entitlement to relief under the CAT are not subject to review by this court. Id.

Paramero argues that he was eligible for withholding of removal because he demonstrated that he was persecuted and fears persecution by guerillas in Columbia on account of his religious beliefs and practices. To be eligible for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an alien must demonstrate a clear probability of persecution upon return. Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir.2004). The BIA’s decision that Paramero had failed to demonstrate clear probability of persecution is supported by substantial evidence. Zamora-Morel v. INS, 905 F.2d 833, 838 (5th Cir.1990). The 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.