Case Name: Menghsteab ARAIA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-22
Citations: 73 F. App'x 725
Docket Number: No. 02-60859
Parties: Menghsteab ARAIA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 73
Pages: 725–725

Head Matter:
Menghsteab ARAIA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-60859.
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 22, 2003.
Menghsteab Araia, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
Efthimia Spiridoula Pilitsis, John Ashcroft, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Terri Jane Scadron, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, Houston, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Menghsteab Araia petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his application for asylum. Araia argues that the evidence shows that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in both Eritrea and Ethiopia and that he is a "refugee" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1158. Araia, however, fails to show a particularized connection between the feared persecution and his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir.1994).
Araia does not challenge the denial of his application for withholding of removal. That issue is, therefore, deemed abandoned. See Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir.1986) (issues not briefed are waived). Araia's contention that the decision of the Immigration Judge contains an error relative to Araia's statement about his citizenship is incorrect.
Araia's petition is DENIED. His motion for the appointment of counsel 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.