Case ID: f-appx_348/html/0016-01.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

Manuel FAJARDO-JIMENEZ, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-61087
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 5, 2009.
    Manuel Fajardo-Jimenez, Raymondville, TX, pro se.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Joan H. Hogan, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, E.M. Trominski, District Director, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Harlingen, TX, for Respondent.
    
      Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Manuel Fajardo-Jimenez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) order removing Petitioner to Costa Rica. For the following reasons, the petition is DENIED.

1. Petitioner seeks political asylum in the United States after being arrested and scheduled for removal. The immigration judge (“IJ”) found that Petitioner’s application for asylum was untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination. This Court has no jurisdiction to disturb this determination as it is specifically based on findings of fact. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594-95 (5th Cir .2007).

2. Petitioner also seeks withholding of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). However, there is substantial evidence that supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner was not eligible for withholding of removal and that Petitioner failed to establish “an objective ‘clear probability’ of persecution in the proposed country of removal.” See Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 413, 104 S.Ct. 2489, 2492, 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984)).

3. Finally, Petitioner seeks protection pursuant to the Convention Against Torture. However, there is substantial evidence to support the BIA’s determination that Petitioner failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2); 1208.18(a)(1); Majd, 446 F.3d at 595-96.

PETITION 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.