Vallabh, et al v. INS, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
April 15, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-60420
Summary Calendar
RAJNIKANT LALU VALLABH; JYOTSNABEN RAJNIKANT VALLABH;
NIMESH RAJNIKANT; RIMA RAJNIKANT,
Petitioners,
versus
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of Decisions of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
No. A75 016 213
No. A75 016 212
No. A75 016 211
No. A75 016 210
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mozambican citizens Rajnikant Lalu Vallabh (“Vallabh”),
his wife Jyotsnaben Vallabh (“Jyotsnaben”), and their children,
Nimesh Rajnikant and Rima Rajnikant, petition for review of the
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision
affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying them

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 02-60420
-2-
asylum and withholding of deportation without an opinion. The
Vallabhs argue that the BIA deprived them of due process by
failing to exercise discretion when reviewing the IJ’s decision
pursuant to the BIA’s recently adopted policy allowing single-
member decisions; that the IJ and BIA erred by holding the
their persecution by armed members of the RENAMO party was not
persecution on account of political opinion; and that the IJ
and BIA erred by overlooking an additional, racial motive for
persecution.
The BIA’s single-member affirmance policy, set forth at
8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7), does not violate the Due Process Clause.
Soadjede v. Ashcroft, ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. Mar. 28, 2003),
2003 WL 1093979. The due process contention is unavailing.
The evidence indicated that Vallabh and Jyotsnaben were
victims of thugs who were affiliated with the RENAMO party.
However, evidence from the State Department did not indicate
that RENAMO, an opposition party, engaged in organized political
persecution. Moreover, Vallabh’s testimony indicated that he
was not a prominent or outspoken member of FRELIMO. The record
suggested that the Vallabhs likely were victims of crime, not
victims of political persecution.
The argument for racial persecution evidently is based on
the Vallabhs’ status as Indians living in Mozambique and the
attackers’ comment that they did not belong in Mozambique. That

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 02-60420
-3-
comment was too vague necessarily to demonstrate any racial
animus on the part of the attackers.
The Vallabhs and Rajnikants have failed to show that
the IJ’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of
discretion. Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir. 1994).
Nor have they shown a clear probability of persecution on a
prohibited ground. Id. at 749-50.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --