United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 22, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60604
Summary Calendar
EMMANUEL FASSI,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A70-675-029
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Emmanuel Fassi, a native of Cameroon, petitions this court
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ affirmance of the
Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for political
asylum and withholding of removal. Fassi argues that the Board’s
summary affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s decision violated
his due process rights. He also argues that the Immigration
Judge did not consider the severity of the discrimination Fassi
experienced in his employment in Cameroon, Fassi’s arrest and
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 02-60604
-2-
beating by Cameroon police officers in 1989, and threats Fassi
received in 1994 in the United States for his participation in a
United States organization known as Cap Liberte, which protests
human rights violations committed in Cameroon. He contends that
he was entitled to asylum and that the decision to deny such was
an abuse of discretion.
Fassi’s argument that the single Board member’s summary
affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s decision was a due process
violation is without merit. See Soadjede v. Ascroft, __ F.3d __,
2003 WL 1093979 (5th Cir. March 28, 2003). We may review the
Immigration Judge’s decision in this case. Id.; Mikhael v.
I.N.S., 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).
The Immigration Judge’s determination that Fassi had not
shown past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution if returned to Cameroon was supported by substantial
evidence. Fassi has not shown an abuse of discretion with that
determination. See Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341,
348-50 (5th Cir. 2002); Gomez-Mejia v. I.N.S., 56 F.3d 700, 702
(5th Cir. 1995); see also Abdel-Masieh v. I.N.S., 73 F.3d 579,
583 (5th cir. 1996). Nor has he shown error with the denial of
his application for withholding of removal. Mikhael, 115 F.3d at
306.
Fassi’s petition for review is DENIED.