Lemma v. Ashcroft , 96 F. App'x 209 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 27, 2004
FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60448
Summary Calendar
KASSA WOLDEMARIAM LEMMA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A77 893 067
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Kassa Woldemariam Lemma challenges the decision of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his petition for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT).
The BIA’s finding that Lemma failed to establish eligibility
for asylum is supported by the requisite substantial evidence.
See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 304 (5th Cir. 1997); Faddoul v.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994). And, because Lemma is not
eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal. See Faddoul, 37 F.3d at 188. Moreover,
Lemma failed to exhaust his claim for relief under the CAT,
therefore this court is without jurisdiction to consider it. See
Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001).
Lemma’s claim that the IJ erred in excluding evidence under 8
C.F.R. §§ 3.33 and 287.6 (certification of foreign documents and
translations) fails because he has not demonstrated substantial
prejudice as a result of the exclusion. See Molina v. Sewell, 983
F.2d 676, 678 (5th Cir. 1993). His claim that his due process
rights were violated by such exclusion under 8 C.F.R. § 287.6(b)
fails for the same reason. See Anwar v. INS, 116 F.3d 140, 144
(5th Cir. 1997).
DENIED
2