Theo-Harding v. Ashcroft , 117 F. App'x 300 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1668
DONALD ERASMUS THEO-HARDING,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-240-651)
Submitted: November 15, 2004 Decided: December 29, 2004
Before LUTTIG, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Donald E. Keener, Deputy Director, Alison Marie Igoe,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Donald Erasmus Theo-Harding, a native and citizen of
Sierra Leone, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming, without opinion, the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture.
Theo-Harding challenges the IJ’s determination that he
failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal
of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must
show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of
persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992).
We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude Theo-Harding
fails to show the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly,
we cannot grant the relief Theo-Harding seeks.
In addition, we conclude Theo-Harding’s claim that the
Board’s use of the summary affirmance procedure under 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(e)(4) (2004) violated his rights under the Due Process
Clause is foreclosed by our decision in Blanco de Belbruno v.
Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272 (4th Cir. 2004). In Blanco de Belbruno, we
held that “the BIA’s streamlining regulations do not violate an
alien’s rights to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.”
Id. at 283.
- 2 -
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -