Pereira-Solis v. Ashcroft ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                       United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS           May 8, 2003
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT            Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 02-60477
    Summary Calendar
    RUBEN PEREIRA; VILMA ESPERANZA SOLIS-RIVERA;
    RUBEN ALBERTO PEREIRA-SOLIS; VILMA VIOLETA
    PEREIRA-SOLIS,
    Petitioners,
    versus
    JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent.
    * * * * * * * * * *
    CONSOLIDATED WITH
    02-60478
    * * * * * * * * * *
    ROBEL PEREIRA-SOLIS,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent.
    --------------------
    Petition for Review of Orders of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    BIA No. A73 756 832
    BIA No. A73 756 834
    BIA No. A73 756 836
    BIA No. A73 756 837
    BIA No. A76 226 680
    --------------------
    Before DAVIS, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
    No. 02-60477 c/w 02-60478
    -2-
    PER CURIAM:*
    Ruben Pereira, his wife, and his children (collectively, the
    Pereiras) petition for review of the decision of the Board of
    Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirming the immigration
    judge’s decision to deny their application for asylum and for a
    withholding of deportation.   They argue that the summary
    affirmance procedures of the BIA, as codified at the time of
    their hearing under 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7)(ii),** deprive them of
    meaningful judicial review and deny them due process.   Their
    contentions are without merit.    See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, ___
    F.3d ___ (5th Cir. Mar. 28, 2003), 
    2003 WL 1093979
    .
    The Pereiras also assert that the BIA violated 8 C.F.R.
    § 3.1(a)(7)(ii) because it affirmed the decision of the
    immigration judge despite the fact that the immigration judge
    committed material errors.    This is in effect a challenge to the
    merits of the immigration judge’s decision.   Even if it is
    assumed that the immigration judge did not consider their
    documentary evidence detailing the conditions in Guatemala during
    the 1980s and at the time of their departure (despite having
    considered other documentary evidence presented before the
    hearing), the Pereiras have not shown that this general
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
    **
    The regulation is currently codified under 8 C.F.R.
    § 1003.1(a)(7)(ii).
    No. 02-60477 c/w 02-60478
    -3-
    information was sufficient to overcome the flaws in the evidence
    presented in the application and at the hearing.   The Pereiras
    likewise have not established that Ruben Pereira’s membership in
    a particular social group, resulting from his position as a
    former national police officer, is sufficient to overcome that
    evidence, in light of the fact that Ruben Pereira stayed on
    relatively amicable terms with the police while working as a
    truck driver.   We have reviewed the record and the briefs and
    determine that the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
    See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 
    78 F.3d 194
    , 197 (5th Cir. 1996).
    The petition for review is DENIED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-60478

Filed Date: 5/9/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021