Radu Catalin Proksch; Daniela Proksch; Gertrud Proksch; Gerhard Andreas Proksch v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES On Petition for Review of a decision

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-2281
RADU CATALIN PROKSCH;
DANIELA PROKSCH;
GERTRUD PROKSCH;
GERHARD ANDREAS PROKSCH,
Petitioners
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES
On Petition for Review of a decision and order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA Nos. A78-924-091,
A96-419-587, A96-419-588,
A96-419-589)
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 1, 2006
BEFORE: AMBRO, FUENTES, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Filed: June 26, 2006)
OPINION OF THE COURT
GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.

-- 1 of 3 --

In addition to denying Proksch’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal,1
the IJ’s order denied Proksch’s claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture but
Proksch has abandoned that claim and thus we are not concerned with it.
2
This matter comes on before this court on a petition for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dated March 29, 2005, dismissing petitioner Radu
Proksch’s appeal from an order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) entered November 17,
2004, denying Proksch’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Even
though the order of the BIA was contained in a decision of the BIA that erroneously
refers to the IJ’s decision as having been issued January 7, 2004, we are satisfied that the
BIA reviewed the correct proceedings. The BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. §§1
1003.1(b)(3), (9), and we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(1), (b)(2), (d).
After our review of this matter we have concluded that there is substantial
evidence supporting the decision and order of the BIA and thus we are constrained to
deny the petition for review. See Senathirajah v. I.N.S., 157 F.3d 210, 216 (3d Cir.
1998). We nevertheless comment on one point that Proksch raises in his brief. He relies
heavily on the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Mashiri v.
Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2004), and asks us to “extend” that decision to this
case. Petitioner’s br. at 6. As the Attorney General correctly notes, appellee’s br. at 15-
16, Proksch cited Mashiri to the BIA, which, after observing that in this case it was bound
by the controlling precedents of this court, pointed out that in Mashiri the facts were
distinguishable from those here. As the BIA noted, the petitioner in Mashiri “suffered

-- 2 of 3 --

3
death threats, mob violence, and vandalism,” whereas Proksch endured only
“harassment.” AR at 3.
In fact, the only similarities to this case and Mashiri are that in both cases the
petitioners are German citizens who did not and do not want to return to that country.
Moreover, the petitioners in the two cases have significantly different ethnic origins in
that Proksch is a native of a European country, Romania, and the petitioner in Mashiri
was a native of Afghanistan. Overall, we believe that the Attorney General correctly
describes this case in his brief when he indicates that this case involves “common every
day annoyances, occurrences that everyone from time to time must endure.” Appellee’s
br. at 20. In fact, Proksch does not come close to establishing a basis for relief.
The petition for review of the March 29, 2005 order of the BIA will be denied.

-- 3 of 3 --