Melendez-Parada v. Gonzales

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 14, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-60624
Summary Calendar
MAURICIO ALBERTO MELENDEZ-PARADA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(A97 831 423)
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mauricio Alberto Melendez-Parada, a citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) affirming, without a written opinion, the decision of
the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. Although we ordinarily have authority to
review only the BIA’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision where,
as here, the BIA affirms the IJ’s decision without an opinion.
E.g., Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Melendez-Parada concedes the IJ correctly found his past
mistreatment by the MS gang in El Salvador did not rise to the
level of persecution. He contends the IJ erred, however, by
failing to consider the probability of, and possible motivations
for, future persecution.
Melendez-Parada does not meet his burden of showing, or even
allege, fear of persecution based on his race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion, as is required to obtain asylum. See Majd v. Gonzales,
446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2006). Rather, he seeks relief based
on his past encounters with a criminal gang and his fear of future
such encounters.
The record indicates Melendez-Parada’s fear of persecution is
based solely on gang violence in his college town in El Salvador.
“[A]n applicant’s fear of persecution cannot be based solely on
general violence and civil disorder.” Id. (quoting Eduard v.
Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 188 (5th Cir. 2004)) (alteration in
original). Moreover, because the standard of proof required to
establish eligibility for withholding of removal is higher than
that required for asylum, “failure to establish eligibility for
asylum is dispositive of claims for withholding of removal”. Id.
PETITION DENIED

-- 2 of 2 --