UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2160
LILIANA MEKTESHEVA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
--------------------------------
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAW FOUNDATION,
Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A76-897-166)
Submitted: June 30, 2004 Decided: August 6, 2004
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leah W. Hurwitz, LAW OFFICES OF LEAH W. HURWITZ, San Diego,
California, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant
Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Paul
Fiorino, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Mary A.
Kenney, Nadine K. Wettstein, Beth Werlin, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAW
FOUNDATION, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Supporting
Petitioner.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Liliana Mektesheva, a native and citizen of Kazakhstan,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals affirming without opinion a decision of the immigration
judge denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture.* We have reviewed
the record and the decision of the immigration judge, designated by
the Board as the final agency determination, and hold that
substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s conclusion
that Mektesheva failed to establish the past persecution or well-
founded fear of future persecution necessary to establish
eligibility for asylum. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
483 (1992) (the burden of proof is on the alien to establish
eligibility for asylum); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2004) (same). We
will reverse the Board only if the evidence “‘was so compelling
that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite
fear of persecution.’” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th
Cir. 2002) (quoting Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84). We find
no such compelling evidence.
Mektesheva challenges the Board’s use of the streamlined
appeal procedures of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7) (2004). We have
*
Mektesheva does not challenge the denial of withholding of
removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture in this
court.
- 2 -
recently rejected challenges to these procedures in Blanco de
Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272 (4th Cir. 2004). In addition,
we conclude that Mektesheva’s challenge to the use of the procedure
in her case is without merit. As we stated in Blanco de Belbruno,
“[i]f the [Board]’s practices result in a decision that allows a
non-harmless error to slip through, there is always the avenue of
an appeal to the court to correct the error.” Id. at 281. Here,
we find no such error.
We deny Mektesheva’s motion to place this appeal in
abeyance pending the outcome of her application for adjustment of
status. We deny the petition for review. 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.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -