Amsalu v. Ashcroft

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2448
NARDOS T. AMSALU,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United
States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A76-896-741)
Submitted: August 29, 2003 Decided: August 16, 2004
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hargwayne Gegziabhre, St. Paul, Minnesota, for Petitioner. Robert
D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, David E. Dauenheimer, Office
of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Nardos T. Amsalu, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”). The order affirmed, without opinion, the
immigration judge’s order denying Amsalu’s applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for
review.
Amsalu first challenges the immigration judge’s finding
that she failed to demonstrate past persecution and a well-founded
fear of future persecution. The decision to grant or deny asylum
relief is conclusive “unless manifestly contrary to the law and an
abuse of discretion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2000). We find
substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s conclusion
that Amsalu failed to establish her eligibility for asylum. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2003); Gonahasa v. INS, 181 F.3d 538, 541 (4th
Cir. 1999). Because an asylum applicant must show a “clear
probability” of persecution to be entitled to withholding of
removal, a higher standard than an asylum claim's requirement of a
well-founded fear of persecution, we also hold that the immigration
judge properly denied Amsalu’s petition for withholding of removal.
See Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272, 2004 WL 603501,
at *12 (4th Cir. Mar. 29, 2004) (No. 02-2142). Finally, we hold
that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s
- 2 -
determination that Amsalu did not establish that it was more likely
than not that she would be tortured if removed to Ethiopia, see 8
C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2), and thus, that the immigration judge
properly denied Amsalu’s petition for protection under the
Convention Against Torture.
Next, Amsalu claims that the Board abdicated its
responsibility to provide a reasoned opinion in affirming the
decision of the immigration judge without opinion, after review by
a single Board member, in accordance with the procedure set out in
8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7) (2003). Amsalu claims the Board’s summary
affirmance procedures deny her due process under the Fifth
Amendment. We have reviewed Amsalu’s due process challenge to the
Board’s use of its streamlined procedures and find it meritless.
See Blanco de Belbruno, 362 F.3d 272, 2004 WL 603501, at *6-*8.
Accordingly, we deny Amsalu’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
- 3 -