Fajardo-Estrada v. Ashcroft

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
July 7, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60643
Summary Calendar
VINCENTE FAJARDO-ESTRADA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A91 465 814
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Vincente Fajardo-Estrada challenges a final order of
removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
on July 3, 2002. Following an evidentiary hearing, the
immigration judge (IJ) found Fajardo-Estrada removable on the
charge of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6)(E)(i) of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i), for knowingly encouraging,
inducing, assisting, abetting, or aiding another alien to enter
or trying to enter the United States in violation of law,
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-60643
-2-
based on his conviction for aiding and abetting illegal entry,
8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3). The IJ also denied his application for
cancellation of removal and denied his request for voluntary
departure. The BIA summarily affirmed the IJ’s decision pursuant
to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7).
Fajardo-Estrada argues that the BIA violated his right
to due process by affirming his appeal without opinion.
He argues that because the BIA did not give an explanation
for its decision, he has no indication that his appeal received
any consideration on the merits.
This court rejected a due process challenge to the
“streamlining” regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7), which authorizes
a single Board member to affirm, without opinion, the results
of an immigration judge’s decision, in Soadjede v. Ashcroft,
324 F.3d 830, 832-33 (5th Cir. 2003). This court held that the
summary affirmance procedures do not violate due process and do
not deprive the court of a basis for judicial review. We agreed
with the First Circuit’s statements in Albathani v. INS, 318 F.3d
365 (1st Cir. 2003), that the use of the summary affirmance
procedures do not lead to the inference that the BIA did not
conduct the required review. Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 832.
Fajardo-Estrada does not argue that his case did not meet
the criteria for application of the streamlined review procedures
contained in 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7)(ii). Nor does he argue that
No. 02-60643
-3-
the decision in his case is not supported by substantial
evidence, and thus, he has abandoned the merits of his
immigration appeal. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff
Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Soadjede, 324 F.3d
at 833.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.