Patel, et al 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
July 30, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-60683
Summary Calendar
DASHRATHABHAI MANILAL PATEL;
MEGHANA PATEL; RONIT PATEL,
Petitioners,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. 072-450-496
BIA No. 072-450-631
BIA No. 072-450-632
--------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dashrathabhai Manilal Patel, a citizen of India, 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. Patel argues that the BIA violated his Fifth Amendment

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-60683
-2-
rights by summarily affirming the decision of the IJ without
examining the merits of Patel’s asylum claim. 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).
Patel argues that the BIA erred as a matter of law in
affirming the IJ’s decision without an opinion because the
case does not meet the requirements for a summary affirmance.
Because the decision of the IJ was correct and does not raise any
substantial factual or legal questions on appeal, the decision
met the criteria for a summary affirmance. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(a)(7)(ii).
Insofar as Patel challenges the validity of the agency’s
decision, a review of the record reflects that the decision is
supported by substantial evidence and that the evidence in the
record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Ontunez-
Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 350 (5th Cir. 2002); Mikhael
v. I.N.S., 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the
petition for review is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --