
    Daniel Ghebremariam WOLDU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-61051
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 7, 2006.
    
      Brian K. Bates, Quan, Burdette & Perez, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Donald Anthony Couvillon, Donald Anthony Couvillon, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Matthew Miles Collette, Michael Jay Singer, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, Anne M. Estrada, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Dallas, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Daniel Ghebremariam Woldu, a native and citizen of Eritrea, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum. Woldu contends that the BIA’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence because he established past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution.

Woldu does not challenge the denial of his application for withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture. Therefore, these issues are waived. See Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir.2004). Further, the BIA’s determination that Woldu failed to establish past persecution is supported by substantial evidence, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 304 (5th Cir.1997).

However, in considering Woldu’s well-founded fear of persecution claim, the IJ relied on Woldu’s past treatment in Eritrea to support his determination that there was no basis for Woldu’s alleged fear of future persecution. Further, the IJ and BIA failed to address relevant evidence presented by Woldu to support this claim. Therefore, the BIA’s decision fails to reflect meaningful consideration of all the relevant and substantial evidence supporting Woldu’s fear of future persecution claim. See Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 584-85 (5th Cir.1996). Accordingly, the petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s removal order is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. This court does not, however, intimate what conclusion the BIA should reach on remand.

In light of the foregoing, Woldu’s motion for a stay of removal is DENIED AS MOOT. 
      
       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.
     