
    Francisco Ariel PAUC-CHANEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-60696
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 5, 2003.
    John C. Osborne, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    
      John Ashcroft, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Terri Jane Scadron, Jennifer Parker, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, Houston, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Francisco Ariel Pauc-Chanez petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his application for withholding of removal. He argues that the evidence compels a conclusion that he is so eligible. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.1994). Pauc, however, has not shown that all reasonable fact finders would conclude that “it is more likely than not” that his life or freedom would be threatened by persecution on account of either his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion were he to be returned to Guatemala. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir.2002). He, therefore, has not shown error in the denial of withholding of removal.

Pauc also assigned as error the Board’s denial of his application for voluntary departure and the denial of his application for asylum. Pauc, however, has failed to brief either of these issue and they are, therefore, waived. See Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir.1986) (issues not briefed are waived). Moreover, even had Pauc briefed the issue of the denial of his application for voluntary departure, this court is without jurisdiction to hear that challenge. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229c(f), 1252(a)(2)(B); Eyoum v. INS, 125 F.3d 889, 891 (5th Cir.1997).

Pauc’s petition is, therefore,

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     