Naserddine v. Ashcroft , 84 F. App'x 466 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 8, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60235
Summary Calendar
ISSA ABDELMAWLA NASERDDINE,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition For Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A77-235-123
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Issa Abdelmawla Naserddine petitions this court for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying his application for asylum
and withholding of removal.
When, as here, the BIA summarily affirms without opinion and
essentially adopts the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s
decision. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-60235
-2-
Naserddine argues that the IJ erred when she determined that
he did not have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of
his political opinion or on account of his membership in a
particular social group. The IJ’s determination is supported by
substantial evidence and is correct based on precedent
established in INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992), and
Rivas-Martinez v. INS, 997 F.2d 1143 (5th Cir. 1993). See
Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 350 (5th Cir. 2002)
(this court will uphold the IJ’s decision if it is supported by
substantial evidence).
Nasserdine further argues that the BIA violated his due
process rights and misapplied its regulations when it issued an
affirmance without an opinion pursuant to 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(e)(4). The due process argument is without merit. See
Soajede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832-33 (5th Cir. 2003)
(rejecting due process challenge to a similar summary affirmance
procedure set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1003(a)(7)). Moreover, the
decision met the criteria for a summary affirmance pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1003.1(e)(4).
The petition for review is therefore DENIED.