UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1422
ARASH SHAHNEGAR AGHDAM,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 03-2256
ARASH SHAHNEGAR AGHDAM,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A70-310-715)
Submitted: April 30, 2004 Decided: June 10, 2004
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Parastoo Golesorkhi-Zahedi, Vienna, Virginia, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Donald E. Keener,
Deputy Director, Alison R. Drucker, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Civil Division, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated petitions for review, Arash
Shahnegar Aghdam petitions this court for review of two decisions
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). In No. 03-1422,
Aghdam, a native and citizen of Iran, seeks review of a decision of
the immigration judge, affirmed without opinion by the Board
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2003). The decision denied
Aghdam’s request for cancellation of removal, as well as his
application for asylum relief and withholding of removal.
Aghdam first challenges the Board’s use of summary
affirmance procedures in reviewing his appeal. We have recently
upheld a similar challenge where the Board has elected not to issue
a separate opinion. See Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d
272, 282 (4th Cir. 2004) (upholding the Board’s use of the summary
affirmance procedure set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7)(2003)).
We find that reasoning applicable here, and conclude that this
claim lacks merit.
Aghdam challenges the immigration judge’s determination
that he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain
reversal of such a determination, the alien “must show that the
evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable
factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.”
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have
- 3 -
reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Aghdam fails to
show that the evidence compels a contrary result.
Aghdam next disputes the finding of the immigration judge
that he failed to qualify for cancellation of removal because he
did not establish that his removal would result in “exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship” to his mother, a lawful permanent
resident of the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D)
(2000). Because the immigration judge’s hardship determination is
discretionary in nature, we lack jurisdiction to consider this
claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2000); Mendez-Moranchel v.
Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 176, 179 (3d Cir. 2003); Romero-Torres v.
Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir. 2003).
In No. 03-2256, Aghdam challenges the Board’s denial of
his motion to reopen and reconsider. This court’s review of the
denial of such motions is extremely deferential, and the decision
will not be reversed absent abuse of discretion. Stewart v. INS,
181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999). We conclude that the Board did
not abuse its discretion in ruling that Aghdam was ineligible for
an adjustment of status, in view of his failure to timely depart.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d) (2000).
Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review in these
appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITIONS DENIED