United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 27, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-61128
Summary Calendar
MUHAMMAD MOTEN MAQSOOD,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition For Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA No. A78-352-830)
--------------------
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner Muhammad Moten Maqsood asks this court to review
the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that
affirmed the Immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying Petitioner’s
application for asylum and withholding of removal.
When, as here, the BIA summarily affirms without opinion and
essentially adopts the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision.
See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).
The IJ ruled that Maqsood did not timely file his application
for asylum. This ruling, which Maqsood has not challenged, is not
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
reviewable by a court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). Accordingly,
regarding denial of the asylum, the petition is dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction.
Maqsood argues that the IJ erred in determinating that he was
ineligible for withholding of removal, contending that the IJ did
not correctly assess his testimony and mistook confusion for a lack
of credibility. Maqsood has not demonstrated that the record
compels a conclusion contrary to that of the IJ and therefore has
not provided a basis for us to substitute our determination for
that of the IJ concerning credibility or ultimate factual findings
based on credibility determinations. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d
899, 904 (5th Cir. 2002).
Maqsood also argues that the IJ erroneously denied his
application for withholding of removal because evidence shows that
he will suffer persecution if he returns to Pakistan. The IJ’s
conclusion that Maqsood did not establish a clear probability that
he will be persecuted if he returns to Pakistan is supported by
substantial record evidence. See Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188
(5th Cir. 1994).
Maqsood further argues that his case did not meet the BIA’s
requirements for issuance of an affirmance without opinion pursuant
to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4), and that the BIA’s use of such summary
procedure violated his due process rights. The due process
argument is without merit. See Soajede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830,
832-33 (5th Cir. 2003) (rejecting due process challenge to a
similar summary affirmance procedure set forth in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1003(a)(7)). Furthermore, as the decision of the IJ was correct
and does not raise any substantial factual or legal questions on
appeal, that decision meets the criteria for a summary affirmance
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1003.1(4).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is denied.
DISMISS IN PART; DENIED IN PART.