Case Name: Gelmil H. BARRIOS, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-02
Citations: 384 F. App'x 417
Docket Number: No. 09-60746
Parties: Gelmil H. BARRIOS, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 384
Pages: 417–418

Head Matter:
Gelmil H. BARRIOS, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-60746
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 2, 2010.
Gino Mario Mesa, Law Office of Gino M. Mesa, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
Lindsay Brooke Glauner, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
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.
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, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (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.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.