
    Juan Alberto SUAZO-UMANZOR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-60199.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided March 24, 2005.
    
      Elizabeth M. Mendoza Macias, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, John Clifford Cunningham, John S. Hogan, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Immigration Litigation, Alberto R Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Hipolito Acosta, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Houston, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Juan Alberto Suazo-Umanzor, a citizen of El Salvador, petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Suazo-Umanzor asserts that his “life was threatened and because the government of El Salvador appears to be unable or unwilling to control the gangs in said country” he is entitled to a grant of asylum.

Suazo-Umanzor, who is represented by counsel, does not challenge the immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) finding that his claim does not fall within one of the five grounds enumerated in the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish eligibility for asylum. Further, he does not challenge the IJ’s finding that he failed to establish that he could not relocate to another part of El Salvador to avoid the problems with the gang. Finally, Suazo-Umanzor does not argue that there was error in the denial of his application for withholding of removal or protection under the CAT. As such, Suazo-Umanzor has abandoned all of his claims on appeal. See Calderon-Ontiveros v. I.N.S., 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, Suazo-Umanzor petition for review of the BIA’s decision is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     