Kroupko v. Ashcroft

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 30, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60021
Summary Calendar
ALEXIE KROUPKO,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A28 465 084
Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alexie Kroupko petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration
judge’s (IJ) decision to deny his application for asylum or
withholding of deportation. Kroupko argues that the errors and
irregularities in his proceedings before the IJ and the BIA
violated his right to due process. He contends further that he has
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
established past persecution and a well-founded fear of future
persecution if he were to return to Russia.
Kroupko is unable to carry his burden of showing that he
was substantially prejudiced by the alleged error and irregulari-
ties in his proceedings, nor is he able to “make a prima facie
showing that he was eligible for asylum and that he could have made
a strong showing in support of his application.” See Anwar v. INS,
116 F.3d 140, 144 (5th Cir. 1997). Furthermore, the BIA did not
abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen Kroupko’s case. See Efe
v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 904 (5th Cir. 2002).
The BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence
and the evidence in the record does not compel a contrary conclu-
sion. See Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 350 (5th Cir.
2002); Girma v. INS, 283 F.3d 664, 669 (5th Cir. 2002). Conse-
quently, Kroupko also has not made the requisite showing for
withholding of removal. See Girma, 283 F.3d at 666-67. Accord-
ingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
2