Iremashvili v. Ashcroft , 88 F. App'x 791 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OthiF APPEALS February 27, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60414
Summary Calendar
ROMAN IREMASHVILI,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A73 710 244
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roman Iremashvili petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from
the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for
asylum and withholding of deportation. Iremashvili argues that
the BIA’s denial of his application for asylum is not supported
by substantial evidence. He further contends that the
evidentiary hearing before the IJ lacked fundamental fairness
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-60414
-2-
because he was not allowed to testify in English and because of
the IJ’s conduct during the hearing, including the IJ’s extensive
cross-examination of him. Iremashvili also argues that the BIA
erred in not addressing on appeal his request for an extension of
voluntary departure to include the period during any subsequent
judicial review.
Because the BIA did not adopt the IJ’s decision, but rather
issued its own opinion in dismissing Iremashvili’s appeal, this
court reviews the decision of the BIA. See Girma v. INS, 283
F.3d 664, 666 (5th Cir. 2002). This court will uphold the
factual findings that an alien is not eligible for asylum or
withholding of deportation if those findings are supported by
substantial evidence. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197
(5th Cir. 1996). The substantial evidence standard requires that
the decision be based on the evidence presented and that the
decision be substantially reasonable. Id.We hold that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
decision that even assuming past persecution, Iremashvili’s well-
founded fear of future persecution has been rebutted by changed
circumstances in Georgia. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b). Iremashvili
was not deprived of fundamental fairness during the evidentiary
hearing before the IJ. See Animashaun v. INS, 990 F.2d 234, 238
(5th Cir. 1993).
No. 03-60414
-3-
As the respondent argues, we lack jurisdiction to address
Iremashvili’s argument regarding voluntary departure. See Eyoum
v. INS, 125 F.3d 889, 891 (5th Cir. 1997); 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f)
Iremashvili’s petition for review is DENIED. Iremashvili’s
motion for a stay of voluntary departure pending appeal also is
DENIED.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED; MOTION FOR STAY OF VOLUNTARY
DEPARTURE PENDING APPEAL DENIED.