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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-60946

Summary Calendar

MARTHA DELMIS BENITEZ-MANZANARES

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. A200 033 106

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Having conceded removability, Martha Delmis Benitez-Manzanares, a

native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her

applications for asylum and withholding of removal. “We review the decision of

the BIA, and reach the underlying decision of the [IJ] only if that decision has

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 28, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-60946

2

some impact upon the BIA’s opinion.” Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341,

348 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997)).

“We review factual findings of the [BIA] to determine if they are supported by

substantial evidence in the record.” Mikhael, 115 F.3d at 302 (citing INS v.

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)). Under this standard, the BIA’s

decision will be affirmed unless the “evidence compels a contrary conclusion”.

Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Ozdemir v.

INS, 46 F.3d 6, 8 (5th Cir. 1994)).

We conclude: the BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the

record; concomitantly, the evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion. See

id. Among other things, the evidence does not establish that Benitez was

persecuted for being a member of any particular social group. Moreover,

Benitez’ having failed to make the requisite showing for asylum, she likewise

fails to meet the more stringent standard for proving eligibility for withholding

of removal. See Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 190 n.7 (5th Cir. 1994).

Benitez also claims the BIA erred by affirming the IJ’s decision through

the action of a single BIA member. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e), “[u]nless

a case meets the standards for assignment to a three-member panel under

[§ 1003.1(e)(6)], all cases shall be assigned to a single [BIA] member for

disposition”. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e) (emphasis added). Benitez’ case does not meet

the standards for assignment to a three-member panel. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.1(e)(6) (limiting review by a three-member panel to circumstances where,

inter alia, there is a need to “settle inconsistencies among the rulings of different

immigration judges”, “review a decision by an [IJ] . . . that is not in conformity

with the law or with applicable precedents”, or “review a clearly erroneous

factual determination by an [IJ]”). Accordingly, the affirmance of the IJ’s

decision by a single BIA member was permissible. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(5)

(permitting a single BIA member to consider the merits of a case, and to “issue
No. 08-60946

3

a brief order affirming . . . the decision under review”); see also, e.g.,

Azhdaroldini v. Gonzales, 220 F. App’x 350, 351 (5th Cir. 2007) (unpublished).

DENIED.