Temesgen v. Ashcroft

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
September 16, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-60945
Summary Calendar
WULETAW TEMESGEN
Petitioner
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent
--------------------
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A78-354-288
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and BARKSDALE, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Wuletaw Temesgen (“Temesgen”), a citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming the immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision to deny his application for asylum or withholding
of removal. Temesgen argues that the BIA violated his due
process rights by summarily affirming the decision of the IJ and

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-60945
-2-
that this court is unable to provide a meaningful review of the
BIA’s decision. The court has held that the summary affirmance
procedures do not violate due process and do not deprive the
court of a basis for judicial review. Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324
F.3d 830, 832-33 (5th Cir. 2003).
Temesgen asserts that the BIA and the IJ adopted positions
contrary to the evidence and improperly based their decisions on
evidence that was not a part of the record, namely the existence
of a peace treaty between Ethiopia and Eritrea and the presence
of the peacekeepers in Ethiopia. Assuming arguendo that the IJ
did take judicial notice of facts concerning current events in
Ethiopia, the IJ may take judicial notice of such “commonly
acknowledged facts.” See Rivera-Cruz v. INS, 948 F.2d 962, 966-
67 (5th Cir. 1991).
Finally, Temesgen argues that his due process rights were
violated when the IJ denied his second request for a continuance
to obtain additional materials regarding the present status of
deportation and segregation of individuals with Eritrean
heritage. A review of the record indicates that the denial of
the second continuance did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
See Howard v. INS, 930 F.2d 432, 436 (5th Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --