Awde-Mohammad v. Ashcroft ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 10, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60350
Summary Calendar
KALED AWDE-MOHAMMAD,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A28-328-391
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kaled Awde-Mohammad (Awde) seeks review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) summary affirmance of an Immigration
Judge’s (IJ) denial of Awde’s applications for asylum and
withholding of deportation, and order that he be deported to
Lebanon. Awde contends that the BIA violated his right to due
process by summarily affirming the IJ’s decision pursuant to
8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7). We AFFIRM.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-60350
-2-
Ashcroft contends that Awde’s argument on the merits of his
claims for asylum and withholding of deportation is foreclosed by
res judicata. The IJ denied Awde’s claim on grounds that relief
is precluded by res judicata, and the BIA affirmed without
opinion. Because Awde now makes no challenge to this ruling,
he is bound by it upon appeal. See Evergreen Presbyterian
Ministries, Inc., 235 F.3d 908, 918 (5th Cir. 2000).
Awde contends that the IJ’s order should be reversed because
he made no findings or holdings regarding Awde’s request for
withholding of deportation. In fact, the IJ specifically stated
that Awde’s application therefor was denied.
Eligibility for withholding of deportation requires proof of
a higher objective likelihood that an alien would be persecuted,
than is required to establish his eligibility for asylum.
Consequently, the alien’s inability to establish that he is
entitled to asylum necessarily results in his inability to
demonstrate that he is entitled to withholding of deportation.
See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). In light
of the IJ’s findings regarding asylum, therefore, there was no
need for him to state reasons why he also denied Awde’s request
for withholding of deportation.
Finally, Awde contends that the BIA’s summary affirmance
of the IJ’s decision by a single Board member pursuant to
8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7) violated his due process rights under
the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This
No. 02-60350
-3-
contention was recently held to lack merit in Soadjede
v. Ashcroft, ___F.3d___ (5th Cir. March 28, 2003, No. 02-60314),
slip op. 2106, 2108.
Accordingly, Awde’s petition for review is DENIED, and the
order of the BIA is AFFIRMED.