Rodriguez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Fifth Circuit

Rodriguez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

70 F. App'x 776

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 21, 2003

Docket02-60677

StatusUnpublished

This text of 70 F. App'x 776 (Rodriguez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rodriguez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 70 F. App'x 776 (5th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Gloria E. Rodriguez and David G. Rodriguez petition this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal from the denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of deportation.

The Rodriguezes argue that the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the BIA erroneously concluded that the Rodriguezes each failed to show that they qualified for asylum. They argue that the IJ failed to consider evidence of persecution, including David’s dismissal fi-om his job, his subsequent unsuccessful attempts to obtain legal redress, and threats against the family. After reviewing the evidence, we conclude that the BIA’s finding that the Rodriguezes were not refugees eligible for asylum was supported by reasonable and substantial evidence and that the Rodriguezes failed to show that the evidence they presented “was such that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed.” See I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 112 S.Ct. 812, 815, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

The Rodriguezes also argue that because they were proceeding pro se, the Id’s failure to provide additional assistance *777 in the factual development of their claims denied them a full and fair opportunity to present their claims. This court, however, has held that an IJ has no duty “to develop the facts necessary to prove [the alien’s] case.” Lopez-Rodriguez v. I.N.S., No. 93-05242 at *15, 20 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. Mar. 24, 1994) (unpublished). 1

Accordingly, the petition for review 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. In accordance with 5th Cir. 47.5.3, unpublished opinions issued before January 1, 1996, are precedent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Gloria E. Rodriguez and David G. Rodriguez petition this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal from the denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of deportation.

The Rodriguezes argue that the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the BIA erroneously concluded that the Rodriguezes each failed to show that they qualified for asylum. They argue that the IJ failed to consider evidence of persecution, including David’s dismissal fi-om his job, his subsequent unsuccessful attempts to obtain legal redress, and threats against the family. After reviewing the evidence, we conclude that the BIA’s finding that the Rodriguezes were not refugees eligible for asylum was supported by reasonable and substantial evidence and that the Rodriguezes failed to show that the evidence they presented “was such that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed.” See I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 112 S.Ct. 812, 815, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

The Rodriguezes also argue that because they were proceeding pro se, the Id’s failure to provide additional assistance *777 in the factual development of their claims denied them a full and fair opportunity to present their claims. This court, however, has held that an IJ has no duty “to develop the facts necessary to prove [the alien’s] case.” Lopez-Rodriguez v. I.N.S., No. 93-05242 at *15, 20 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. Mar. 24, 1994) (unpublished). 1

Accordingly, the petition for review 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.

1

. In accordance with 5th Cir. 47.5.3, unpublished opinions issued before January 1, 1996, are precedent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 F. App'x 776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-immigration-naturalization-service-ca5-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack