United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 17, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-61069
Summary Calendar
AMADOU BAMBA CISSE
Petitioner
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT, US ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A72-415-208
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Amadou Bamba Cisse, a native and citizen of Senegal, has
petitioned for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing without opinion his appeal from the
decision of the immigration judge (“IJ”) denying Cisse’s
application for asylum and for withholding of deportation. Cisse
contends that the BIA’s summary affirmance procedures do not
provide a basis for judicial review. This issue is foreclosed by
Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832-33 (5th Cir. 2003).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 02-61069
-2-
Cisse contends that his asylum application should have been
granted. He argues that his fear of persecution was reasonable
because he had opposed the Senegalese government and because the
government knew of his opposition. Because the BIA adopted the
IJ’s decision without opinion, this court must review the IJ’s
decision. Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).
This court will uphold the IJ’s determination that Cisse is not
eligible for asylum if it is supported by substantial evidence.
Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 350 (5th Cir. 2002).
The substantial evidence standard requires only that the IJ’s
“conclusion be based upon the evidence presented and be
substantially reasonable.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). To reverse the IJ’s determination that Cisse
is not eligible for asylum, “the evidence must compel a
reasonable fact-finder to conclude that [he] suffered past
persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution
because of a protected ground.” Girma v. INS, 283 F.3d 664, 669
(5th Cir. 2002). The BIA has the discretion to determine whether
the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a grant of asylum
in a particular case. See id.; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1).
After careful review of the briefs and the administrative
record, we conclude that the IJ’s finding that Cisse’s testimony
was not credible because of inconsistencies between Cisse’s two
asylum applications is supported by substantial evidence. The
IJ’s conclusion that Cisse had failed to make an adequate showing
No. 02-61069
-3-
of past persecution and of fear of future persecution is also
supported by substantial evidence.
Cisse contends that the BIA should not have cut three months
from the voluntary departure period. This court lacks
jurisdiction to review claims for discretionary relief, including
claims regarding voluntary departure. Eyoum v. INS, 125 F.3d
889, 891 (5th Cir. 1997).
PETITION DENIED.