Kassa v. Ashcroft , 83 F. App'x 601 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 10, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60018
Summary Calendar
KOKEBE KASSA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A78 580 303
--------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kokebe Kassa, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, has filed a
petition for review of decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeal (BIA) denying her application for asylum and for
withholding of removal. She argues that because the BIA
summarily affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ),
the court does not owe any special deference to the IJ’s
decision. We have rejected the argument that a less deferential
standard of review applies to an IJ’s decision which has been
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-60018
-2-
summarily affirmed by the BIA. See Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d
415, 418 (5th Cir. 2003).
Kassa argues that the IJ erred in giving more weight to the
United States State Department Country Report on conditions in
Ethiopia than to reports of Amnesty International, Human Rights
Watch, and Reuters News Service which she submitted. Sources
such as the United States State Department are the “most
appropriate and perhaps the best resource . . . to obtain
information on political situations in foreign nations.” Rojas
v. INS, 937 F.2d 186, 190 n.1 (5th Cir. 1991). We will not
reverse the BIA’s finding merely because we disagree with the
BIA’s evaluation of the facts or weighing of the evidence. See
Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir. 1994).
Kassa argues that the IJ’s decision that she did not
establish a well-founded fear of future persecution is not
supported by substantial evidence. Kassa has not established
that the evidence of her fear of future persecution was so
compelling that no reasonable factfinder would conclude against
such a finding. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.