Matsiona v. Ashcroft

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2338
LADISLAS EDME L. MATSIONA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A75-383-822)
Submitted: October 1, 2003 Decided: February 23, 2004
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, RONALD D. RICHEY & ASSOCIATES, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Senior Litigation Counsel, Joan E.
Smiley, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ladislas Edme L. Matsiona, a native and citizen of the
Republic of Congo, petitions this Court for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming the
immigration judge’s denial of Matsiona’s requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and voluntary departure. Matsiona also
alleges that the BIA erred in affirming the decision of the
immigration judge without opinion, after review by a single BIA
member, in accordance with the procedure set out in 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(a)(7) (2003). For the following reasons, Matsiona’s
petition for review is denied.
As a threshold matter, we have reviewed Matsiona’s
challenges to the BIA’s use of the procedure for streamlined review
and find them to be without merit. See Falcon Carriche v.
Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 1009, 2003 WL 21639040, *1 (9th Cir. July 14,
2003); Georgis v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 962, 967 (7th Cir. 2003);
Mendoza v. United States Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1288-89 (11th
Cir. 2003); Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832-33 (5th Cir.
2003); Gonzalez-Oropeza v. United States Att’y Gen., 321 F.3d 1331,
1333-34 (11th Cir. 2003); Albathani v. INS, 318 F.3d 365, 375-79
(1st Cir. 2003). We further find that summary affirmance was
appropriate in this case under the factors set forth in
§ 1003.1(a)(7)(ii).
- 2 -
Turning to the substance of the immigration judge’s
decision, we find no error in the determination that Matsiona is
ineligible for asylum. This court may not reverse a denial of
asylum unless “manifestly contrary to law,” and cannot revisit the
underling factual determinations unless “any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B), (C) (2000). Our review of the record presents no
basis to overturn the immigration judge’s adverse credibility
determination. See Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir.
1989). Nor do we find error in the immigration judge’s conclusion
that Matsiona’s corroborating evidence failed to substantiate his
allegations. See Khan v. INS, 237 F.3d 1143, 1144 (9th Cir. 2001).
Hence, Matsiona fails to demonstrate error in the immigration
judge’s denial of asylum.
With respect to Matsiona’s claims regarding the denial of
withholding of removal and his request for voluntary departure, we
find neither presents a basis for relief. The standard for
withholding of removal is more stringent than that for granting
asylum, Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); hence,
Matsiona’s challenge to the denial of his request for withholding
of removal presents no independent error. Furthermore, this court
lacks jurisdiction to review the discretionary decision to deny
Matsiona’s request for voluntary departure. See Okpa v. INS, 266
F.3d 313, 317 (4th Cir. 2001); 8 C.F.R. § 240.25(c) (2002).
- 3 -
Accordingly, we deny Matsiona’s petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 4 -