Case Name: Helen SEIFU, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-11-03
Citations: 80 F. App'x 323
Docket Number: No. 03-60142
Parties: Helen SEIFU, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 80
Pages: 323–324

Head Matter:
Helen SEIFU, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-60142
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 3, 2003.
Thomas Perrill Adams, Law Office of Thomas P. Adams, New Orleans, LA, for Petitioner.
John Ashcroft, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Papú Sandhu, Aviva Lea Poczter, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Caryl G Thompson, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Helen Seifu has filed a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) summary decision denying her appeal from the Immigration Judge's (IJ) order denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. Seifu contends that she will be subjected to persecution on the basis of her gender and that relief is warranted by her prior subjection to female genital mutilation.
The record does not contain significant evidence which would compel a finding that "a reasonable person in [Seifu's] circumstances would fear persecution." See Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir.1994). As a married woman whose husband has been deported and who has already been subjected to female genital mutilation, the danger to Seifu of marital rape, wife-beating, female genital mutilation, and abduction as a form of marriage is attenuated. Further, the act of female genital mutilation is unfortunately the very fundamental change required to rebut the presumption of persecution created by the showing of past persecution. Though the threat of employment discrimination and general gender-based persecution may remain real, the decision to deny asylum is not substantially unreasonable. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir.1996).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.