
    Reina Isabel FLORES-VIATORO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-60387.
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 19, 2004.
    Elise V. Wilkinson, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    David V. Bernal, Donald Anthony Couvillon, Linda Susan Wendtland, Washington, DC, Nelda C. Ackerman, Washington, DC, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, Houston, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    John Ashcroft, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Reina Isabel Flores-Viatoro (Flores) has filed a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmance of the denial by the Immigration Judge (IJ) of Flores’s application for asylum and for withholding of deportation. Flores argues that the IJ failed to view Flores’s rape in El Salvador as an act of persecution. She also argues that her attorney did not receive a copy of the motion to reinstate the deportation proceedings, which had been administratively closed, and that the failure to mail her attorney a copy of the motion constituted a due process violation. We construe the respondent’s motion for summary affirmance as its brief.

The IJ’s denial of Flores’s application for asylum and for withholding of deportation was based upon a determination that Flores was not a credible witness. We will not disturb the IJ’s credibility determinations. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 905 (5th Cir.2002); Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.1994). Flores did not raise in the proceedings before the BIA the issue of failure to be forwarded a copy of the motion to reinstate. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). We will not address this issue, which Flores raises for the first time in her petition for review. Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft, 252 F.3d 383, 389-91 (5th Cir. 2001).

The respondent’s motion for summary affirmance and other motions are DENIED. Flores’s motion to vacate the BIA decision and remand the case for additional proceedings is DENIED.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. MOTIONS 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     