Woldeyes v. Ashcroft , 83 F. App'x 586 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                             United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS           December 8, 2003
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 02-60969
    Summary Calendar
    LIBAY FANTA WOLDEYES,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    JOHN ASHCROFT, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent.
    --------------------
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    BIA No. A78-342-915
    --------------------
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Libay Fanta Woldeyes (Woldeyes) seeks review of the Board of
    Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) summary affirmance of an Immigration
    Judge’s   (IJ)    denial   of   Woldeyes’s   applications    for     asylum,
    withholding of deportation, and protection under the United Nations
    Convention Against Torture (CAT).      Woldeyes also contends that the
    BIA violated his right to due process by summarily affirming the
    IJ’s decision pursuant to 
    8 C.F.R. § 3.1
    (a)(7) (2001).          We AFFIRM.
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
    We review factual findings of the BIA to determine if they are
    supported by substantial evidence.1              We may reverse the BIA’s
    decision    only   when   “the   evidence   is    ‘so   compelling   that   no
    reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of
    persecution.’”2    When the BIA affirms the IJ’s decision, as the BIA
    did here, we review the IJ’s decision.3
    Woldeyes alleged that, in retaliation for his medical papers
    that criticize Ethiopia’s approach to the AIDS epidemic, he was
    subjected to psychological torture for 48 hours in a dark room with
    poor sanitary conditions and provided with only bread and water.
    He alleges he was questioned in a similar fashion on three other
    occasions.    There is no evidence of physical abuse.           Finally, he
    alleges that two other doctors were taken for questioning and have
    not been seen again.
    Based on these facts, we cannot say that “no reasonable
    factfinder could fail to find” past persecution or a well-founded
    fear of future persecution.4 Brief detentions similar to Woldeyes’
    have been found not to establish persecution.5            Woldeyes provided
    1
    See Mikhael v. I.N.S., 
    115 F.3d 299
    , 301-04 (5th Cir.
    1997).
    2
    
    Id.
     (quoting I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 
    502 U.S. 478
    , 481
    (1992)).
    3
    Gomez-Mejia v. I.N.S., 
    56 F.3d 700
    , 702 (1995).
    4
    Mikhael, 
    115 F.3d at 302
    .
    5
    See Fesseha v. Ashcroft, 
    333 F.3d 13
    , 19 (1st Cir. 2003)
    (concluding that three incidents of detention, not imprisonment,
    2
    no evidence corroborating his testimony, which was contradictory
    at times, that others similar to him were persecuted.              There is no
    evidence of systematic persecution by the government of medical
    professionals.       Accordingly, Woldeyes’s petition for review of the
    denial of asylum and protection under the CAT is denied because the
    IJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.6
    Woldeyes contends that the IJ’s order should be reversed
    because the BIA gave no reasons for denying Woldeyes’s request for
    withholding     of    deportation.       Eligibility     for   withholding   of
    deportation requires proof of a higher objective likelihood that
    one would     be     persecuted   than   is   required   to    establish   one’s
    eligibility for asylum.           Consequently, the alien’s inability to
    establish that he is entitled to asylum necessarily results in his
    inability to demonstrate that he is entitled to withholding of
    deportation.7        In light of the IJ’s findings regarding asylum,
    therefore, there was no need for the IJ to state reasons for the
    denial of Woldeyes’s request for withholding of deportation.
    Finally, Woldeyes contends that the BIA’s summary affirmance
    of the IJ’s decision by a single Board member pursuant to 
    8 C.F.R. § 3.1
    (a)(7) (2001) violated his due process rights under the Fifth
    Amendment to the United States Constitution. This contention lacks
    by Ethiopian government without injury did not constitute
    persecution).
    6
    See Mikhael, 
    115 F.3d at 301-04
    .
    7
    See Efe v. Ashcroft, 
    293 F.3d 899
    , 906 (5th Cir. 2002).
    3
    merit.      The   BIA   decided   Woldeyes’s   appeal   under   
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.1
    (e)(5) (2003), which authorizes a single Board member to
    issue a brief order affirming, modifying, or remanding the IJ’s
    decision.    Insofar as the BIA’s opinion relies on the reasons set
    forth in the IJ’s decision, this Court reviews the IJ’s decision.8
    Woldeyes was provided due process.
    AFFIRMED.
    8
    See Mikhael, 
    115 F.3d at 302-04
    .
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-60969

Citation Numbers: 83 F. App'x 586

Judges: Davis, Higginbotham, Per Curiam, Prado

Filed Date: 12/9/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/1/2023