Kiggundu v. Ashcroft , 97 F. App'x 457 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1175
WILLIAM KIGGUNDU,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A77-893-088)
Submitted: April 12, 2004 Decided: June 1, 2004
Before WIDENER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald L. Schlemmer, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Senior
Litigation Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William Kiggundu, a native and citizen of Uganda,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the immigration
judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
On appeal, Kiggundu first claims that the immigration
judge improperly discounted documentary evidence in denying his
application for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination
denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the
evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable
factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.”
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have
reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Kiggundu fails to
show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we
cannot grant the relief that he seeks.
Kiggundu also claims that the Board violated his due
process rights 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(e)(4)
(2003). We have reviewed his challenges to the Board’s use of this
streamlined procedure and find them to be without merit.
Kiggundu’s argument is squarely foreclosed by our recent decision
- 2 -
in Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, __ F.3d __, 2004 WL 603501 (4th
Cir. Mar. 29, 2004).
Accordingly, we deny the 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 -