United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 21, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60534
Summary Calendar
KETEVAN KHARSHILADZE,
also known as Ketevan Kharshiladze Ussery,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition For Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A77-751-590
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ketevan Kharshiladze, a native and citizen of the Republic of
Georgia, petitions this court for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration
Judge’s (IJ) order denying her application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
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).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-60534
-2-
Kharshiladze has not challenged the IJ’s denial of withholding
of removal or the IJ’s denial of relief under the Convention
Against Torture. These claims are therefore abandoned. See
Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986).
Kharshiladze argues that the record indicates that she
suffered past persecution due to her political opinion and that she
established a probability of future persecution or a well-founded
fear of persecution due to her political opinion. Kharshiladze has
not shown that the evidence compels a reasonable fact-finder to
conclude that she suffered past persecution or has a well-founded
fear of future persecution because of her political opinion. Girma
v. INS, 283 F.3d 664, 669 (5th Cir. 2002); INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992).
Kharhsiladze further argues that the BIA violated her due
process rights when it issued an affirmance without an opinion
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4). 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)). T h e
petition for review is therefore DENIED.