Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-60746/USCOURTS-ca5-09-60746-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gelmil H. Barrios
Petitioner
Eric H. Holder, Jr., U. S. Attorney General
Respondent

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60746

Summary Calendar

GELMIL H. BARRIOS,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A070 431 236

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Petitioner Gelmil H. Barrios petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) determination that he is not entitled to withholding

of removal. Barrios contends that he is entitled to withholding of removal

because of past persecution and the likelihood of future persecution on account

of his political opinion, membership in a particular social group, and religion.

Barrios presented evidence that he left Guatemala because of the violence

caused by the guerillas and the kidnapping of his uncle.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 2, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

 Case: 09-60746 Document: 00511162106 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/02/2010
No. 09-60746

Barrios did not present religion and membership in a particular social

group as bases for withholding of removal to the BIA. Therefore, he failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies as to these issues, and we lack jurisdiction

to consider them. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448,

452-53 (5th Cir. 2001).

Barrios has not shown past persecution or the likelihood of future

persecution on account of his political opinion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502

U.S. 478, 482-83 (1992); Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir. 1994).

Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Barrios

is not entitled to withholding of removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903

(5th Cir. 2002). The petition for review is DENIED.

2

 Case: 09-60746 Document: 00511162106 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/02/2010