Gebremeskel v. Ashcroft , 111 F. App'x 290 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 19, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60666
Summary Calendar
TESFAYE DAWIT GEBREMESKEL; DANIEL DAWIT GEBREMESKEL;
SELAMAWIT GEBREMESKEL; SAMIEL DAWIT GEBREMESKEL,
Petitioners,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of Decisions of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
No. A71 978 772
No. A71 978 773
No. A71 978 774
No. A71 978 751
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tesfaye Dawit Gebremeskel, Daniel Dawit Gebremeskel,
Selamawit Gebremeskel, and Samiel Dawit Gebremeskel, who are
Ethiopians of Eritrean descent, petition for review of the
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the
decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying them asylum,
withholding of deportation, and relief under the Convention
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-60666
-2-
Against Torture. They contend that the BIA’s use of streamlined
procedures, affirming the IJ’s decision without opinion, deprived
them of their right to an administrative appeal and amounted to
mass-production appellate review; that the BIA erred by affirming
the IJ’s decision rejecting their asylum and withholding-of-
deportation claims; and that the BIA erred by affirming the IJ’s
decision rejecting them relief under the Convention Against
Torture. We deny the petition for review for the following
reasons.
First, the BIA’s summary-affirmance procedures “do not
deprive this court of a basis for judicial review and . . . do
not violate due process.” Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830,
833 (5th Cir. 2003). Second, the Gebremeskels have failed to
demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on any ground if
they were to return to Ethiopia. See Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d
185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994). Third, the Gebremeskels have failed to
demonstrate any likelihood of torture were they to return to
Ethiopia. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 997 (5th Cir.
2002).
PETITION DENIED.