Case Name: Ernesto Argenis MELENDEZ-LOZANO, Petitioner v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-09
Citations: 250 F. App'x 116
Docket Number: No. 06-60725
Parties: Ernesto Argenis MELENDEZ-LOZANO, Petitioner v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 250
Pages: 116–117

Head Matter:
Ernesto Argenis MELENDEZ-LOZANO, Petitioner v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-60725
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 9, 2007.
Imran B. Mirza, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Annette Marie Wietecha, Shelley R. Goad, Walter Manning Evans, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Trey Lund, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Field Office Director, Carl Perry, New Orleans, LA, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
Peter D. Keisler, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ernesto Argenis Melendez-Lozano, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions this court for review of an order of the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed the Immigration Judge's order granting asylum relief.
Melendez-Lozano contends that the BIA erred by determining that he had not established past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution if he is returned to Honduras. However, because the record does not compel a finding that MelendezLozano was entitled to any of the relief he sought, Melendez-Lozano has failed to show that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence. See CarbajalGonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir.1996); Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 188 (5th Cir.2004); Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 109, 116 (5th Cir.2006).
Melendez-Lozano's petition for review therefore 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.