Case Name: Felipe SOLORZANO-GIRON, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-25
Citations: 294 F. App'x 112
Docket Number: No. 07-60840
Parties: Felipe SOLORZANO-GIRON, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 294
Pages: 112–113

Head Matter:
Felipe SOLORZANO-GIRON, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-60840
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 25, 2008.
Raed Gonzalez, Quan, Burdette & Perez, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Felipe Solorzano-Giron (Solorzano) petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of the immigration judge denying his application for asylum. As Solorzano has not challenged the denial of his request for withholding of removal, any such challenge is abandoned. See Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n. 15 (5th Cir.1993).
Solorzano argues that, as a member and leader of a labor union formed to collect past wages from his employer, Transpac Central America, he is a member of a "particular social group" for purposes of an application for asylum. He also argues that the BIA erroneously foreclosed him from refugee status due to his failure to turn to Guatemalan authorities for protection from Transpac's death threats.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding that Solorzano was not a refugee. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b); Mwembie v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405, 414-15 (5th Cir.2006); Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir.2006); Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.2006); Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1997); see also In re A-M-E & J-G-U, 24 I. & N. Dec. 69 (BIA 2007). We therefore do not address Solorzano's second argument.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.