IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 00-60091 Summary Calendar __________________

AMITHA PRADEEP BALASURIYA,

Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

--------------------

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A77 443 821

-------------------- November 27, 2000

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Proceeding pro se, Amitha Pradeep Balasuriya, a native and

citizen of Sri Lanka, petitions this court for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’(BIA) order denying his motion to reopen the

removal proceedings for consideration of Article 3 of the

Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading

Treatment or Punishment (Convention Against Torture). This court

may not consider evidence which was not presented initially to the

BIA. Rivera-Cruz v. INS,

(5th Cir. 1991). Nor

* 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 00-60091 -2-

can this court consider the BIA’s initial order dismissing

Balasuriya’s appeal from the immigration judge’s order of removal

and denial of the requests for asylum and for withholding of

removal. Balasuriya did not petition this court for review of that

final order.

Balasuriya contends that the BIA utilized the wrong standard

of review in considering his motion. To be eligible for

withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture,

Balasuriya had the burden “to establish that it is more likely than

not that he . . . would be tortured if removed to the proposed

country of removal.”

(c)(2) (2000). The BIA did

not abuse its discretion by denying Balasuriya’s request to reopen.

His new evidence was insufficient to meet his burden. See De

Morales v. INS,

(5th Cir. 1997).

Accordingly, Balasuriya’s petition for review is DENIED.