Case Name: Deysi Yolanda DIAZ, also known as Deysi Diaz Osorto, 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: 2009-01-16
Citations: 307 F. App'x 798
Docket Number: No. 08-60038
Parties: Deysi Yolanda DIAZ, also known as Deysi Diaz Osorto, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 307
Pages: 798–799

Head Matter:
Deysi Yolanda DIAZ, also known as Deysi Diaz Osorto, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-60038
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 16, 2009.
Cyril Chukwurah, Chukwurah Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, John Clifford Cunningham, Gladys Marta Steffens Guzman, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Deysi Yolanda Diaz petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals's (BIA's) decision denying her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that the gang violence Diaz experienced did not constitute past persecution or establish a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion; therefore, she has not shown an entitlement to asylum. See Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444-45 (5th Cir.2001). Because Diaz has failed to satisfy the requirements for asylum, she has also failed to satisfy the requirements for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act. See Girma v. INS, 283 F.3d 664, 667 (5th Cir.2002). Diaz has inadequately briefed the issue whether she is entitled to relief under the CAT, and it is therefore waived. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.