Filed: Aug. 22, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 22, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-60953 Summary Calendar MAVANANE HEWA GEORGE DE SILVA, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A71 500 279 - Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Mavanane Hewa George De Silva petitions for review
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 22, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-60953 Summary Calendar MAVANANE HEWA GEORGE DE SILVA, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A71 500 279 - Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Mavanane Hewa George De Silva petitions for review ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 22, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60953
Summary Calendar
MAVANANE HEWA GEORGE DE SILVA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A71 500 279
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mavanane Hewa George De Silva petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from
the immigration judge’s decision to deny his application for
asylum, withholding of deportation, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture. He argues that the Board of
Immigration Appeals erred when it concluded that he had not been
the victim of past persecution and that his fear of being
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 02-60953
-2-
persecuted upon removal was not well-founded. We have reviewed
the record and the briefs and determine that the Board’s decision
is supported by substantial evidence and that the evidence in the
record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See INS v.
Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992); Mikhael v. INS,
115
F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the petition for
review is DENIED.