Daudin v. Gonzales, No. 06-60195 (5th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 22, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-60195 Summary Calendar YRIEL DAUDIN, also known as Iriel Daudin, also known as Daudin Iriel, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. -------------------Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A79 130 900 -------------------Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Yriel Daudin, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying him the withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Daudin s argument that he was denied relief based on erroneous adverse credibility determinations is without merit because the BIA specifically declined to make an adverse credibility finding. With respect to his assertion of past persecution based on an imputed political * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 06-60195 -2opinion, Daudin s claim of derivative persecution failed because Daudin failed to set forth any evidence that his mother s political opinion would be imputed to him. See, e.g., Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138-39 (5th Cir. 2004). The immigration judge thus did not err by requiring Daudin to show a clear probability of future persecution on account of one of the protected grounds. Id. Because Daudin failed to make such a showing, the immigration judge did not err by subsequently apportioning to Daudin the burden of proof in establishing that a change in the conditions in Haiti made him unable to return to that country. Finally, the immigration judge did not err in evaluating Daudin s request for relief under the CAT. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906-07 (5th Cir. 2002). PETITION DENIED. See Efe v.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
