
    Fenny Tjandra TJIN; Irsan; Patricia Angelia; Kyan Stephen Angelo; Ian Patrick Angelo, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-60657.
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 8, 2004.
    
      David Laundon Cleveland, Washington, DC, for Petitioners.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Leslie M. McKay, Terri Jane Scadron, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    John Ashcroft, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

The petitioners seek review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming the decision of the immigration judge (“IJ”) to deny their applications for asylum. They have not challenged the denial of withholding of removal or the finding that they are not entitled to asylum on the basis of a well-founded fear of future persecution. These claims are therefore abandoned. See Calderon-Ontiveros v. I.N.S., 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir.1986).

The petitioners argue that the BIA erred in determining that they were not persecuted based upon their religion and ethnicity. The petitioners argue that they established past persecution based on Fenny Tjandra Tjin’s fear following the rape of Chinese women during riots in Jakarta in May 1998, her feeling of isolation during church bombings and burnings, and her loss of a night’s sleep following a threatening phone call to her home. After reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude that the decision, that the petitioners’ allegations did not rise to the level of persecution, is supported by substantial evidence and that the evidence in the record does not compel a conclusion contrary to that reached by the IJ and BIA. Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 350 (5th Cir.2002); Abdel-Masieh v. I.N.S., 73 F.3d 579, 583-84 (5th Cir.1996); Gomez-Mejia v. I.N.S., 56 F.3d 700, 702 (5th Cir.1995).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     