Victor Hugo Collado-Colomer v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
VICTOR HUGO COLLADO-COLOMER, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 93-70699 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
May 9, 1994, ** Submitted, San Francisco, California ** The panel finds this case appropriate for submission
without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and
Ninth Cir. R. 34-4.
May 13, 1994, Filed
Subsequent History: Reported as Unpublished Full-Text Opinion at: 24 F.3d 245.
Prior History: Petition to Review a Decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. INS A28-759-031
Judges: Before: NOONAN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges; EZRA, District Judge *** *** Hon. David A. Ezra, United States District Court, District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
Opinion: MEMORANDUM * * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3. Victor Hugo Collado-Colomer (Collado-Colomer), a native and citizen of Nicaragua, entered the United States without inspection on or about February 16, 1988. Ordered to show cause why he was not deportable, he conceded deportability and requested asylum. The Immigration Judge denied the request, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal. Collado-Colomer now petitions this court for review. We deny the petition. Collado-Colomer argues that the BIA erred, because it failed to recognize that Collado-Colomer had presented sufficient evidence of a well-founded fear of persecution. We conclude, however, that there was no error. Collado-Colomer has given no specific evidence as to why he personally should fear persecution. The sole factor possibly differentiating Collado-Colomer's predicament from that of every other Nicaraguan is his membership in the Colomer family. By itself such membership is insufficient. Estrada-Posadas v. United States I.N.S., 924 F.2d 916, 919 (9th Cir. 1991). Collado-Colomer also argues that the Immigration Judge erred by cross-examining him. There was no error. There is statutory authorization for cross-examination by the Immigration Judge (8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)), and Collado-Colomer has not shown that the Immigration Judge abused his power to cross-examine. Finally, it was not error for the BIA to affirm the Immigration Judge's decision "based upon and for the reasons set forth in his thorough decision." The petition is therefore DENIED.