United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
July 7, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60728
Summary Calendar
PHRA KHOU GNOT VONGPHAKDY,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A71 621 069
-------------------------------------------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Phra Khou Gnot Vongphakdy petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) affirming without opinion the decision of the immigration judge denying his
application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Because the BIA designated the immigration judge’s decision as the final agency
determination, review is of the immigration judge’s decision. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
(5th Cir. 1997). Vongphakdy, a Buddhist, contends that he will be unable to practice his religion as
he would like to because the Communist Party is in control in Laos. He asserts that he was
mistreated when he was in Laos due to his position as a chief monk. Vongphakdy has married and
is no longer a monk, but contends that he fears that he would be arrested by the communists if he is
returned to Laos. The immigration judge’s determination that Vongphakdy did not meet his burden
to show that he is likely to be tortured if removed is supported by substantial evidence. See 8 C.F.R.
§§ 208.18(a) & 208.16(c)(2); Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 353 (5th Cir. 2002);
Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996).
Vongphakdy also argues that the BIA erred in applying the summary review procedures in
8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) to affirm the immigration judge’s denial of relief without opinion. He
contends, based merely on the number of such summary affirmances, that this provision is being
applied systematically. He asserts, in conclusory fashion, that his case was not thoroughly reviewed
and that the regulations were misapplied. We previously have held that the BIA’s summary
affirmance procedures do not violate due process. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832-33
(5th Cir. 2003). Vongphakdy has failed to articulate why his case allegedly does not meet the criteria
for affirmance without opinion, or how his case was not properly reviewed. Accordingly, we find no
error.
The petition for review is DENIED.
-2-