Ljuljanovic v. Ashcroft , 79 F. App'x 641 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS October 30, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-61018
Summary Calendar
SABAHUDIN LJULJANOVIC,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A77 924 885
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Sabahudin Ljuljanovic petitions this court to review the
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming
the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of relief. The IJ denied
Ljuljanovic’s requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Ljuljanovic
argues that: (1) the BIA violated his due process rights by
summarily affirming the IJ’s decision; (2) the IJ erred in
concluding that he failed to establish a well-founded fear of
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-61018
-2-
persecution; and (3) the IJ erred in concluding that he was not
entitled to relief under the CAT.
Ljuljanovic’s due process challenge to the BIA’s summary
affirmance procedure is without merit. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft,
324 F.3d 830, 832-33 (5th Cir. 2003).
The IJ’s finding regarding that Ljuljanovic failed to
establish a well-founded fear of persecution was based upon
Ljuljanovic’s overall lack of knowledge concerning the political
and social changes in Montenegro. This conclusion was based on
the evidence presented and is substantially reasonable. See
Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, the IJ’s determination must be upheld. See Efe v.
Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002).
Ljuljanovic also argues that the IJ erred in denying him
relief under the CAT. Considering the evidence presented, the
record does not compel the finding that Ljuljanovic met his
burden to show that it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured in Montenegro. See id. at 907.
Accordingly, Ljuljanovic’s petition for review is DENIED.