Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02449/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02449-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Confidence Aleru
Petitioner
John Ashcroft
Respondent

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2449

___________

Confidence Aleru, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General *

of the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: June 17, 2004

Filed: June 30, 2004

___________

Before SMITH, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Confidence Aleru petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA), which affirmed without opinion an Immigration Judge's denial of her

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

Against Torture. Aleru presents three arguments for reversal. Because her

contentions are foreclosed by recent decisions of this court, we deny the petition.

Aleru first argues that the BIA's decision to affirm without opinion (AWO) did

not comply with the governing regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4), because she

presented a novel and substantial new argument to the BIA for the first time on

Appellate Case: 03-2449 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2004 Entry ID: 1783006 
-2-

appeal, and because the Immigration Judge's decision was incorrect as a matter of

law. This argument is foreclosed by Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 983 (8th Cir.

2004), which held that "the BIA's decision whether to employ the AWO procedure

in a particular case is committed to agency discretion and not subject to judicial

review." Second, Aleru claims that the AWO procedure violates the fundamental rule

of administrative law that agencies must sufficiently explain their decisions in order

to allow for meaningful judicial review. See SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80,

94-95 (1943); SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196-97 (1947). We considered

and rejected this argument in Ngure, 367 F.3d at 988, because the decision of the

immigration judge satisfies the requirement that the agency provide a reasoned

explanation for judicial review. Aleru contends that Ngure was wrongly decided, but

even if we were inclined to agree, one panel of the court cannot overrule another.

United States v. Prior, 107 F.3d 654, 660 (8th Cir. 1997). Finally, Aleru argues that

the AWO procedure violates her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Like

every other circuit to consider the question, we have held the AWO procedure does

not violate the Fifth Amendment. Loulou v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 706, 708 (8th Cir.

2004). 

Accordingly, the petition for review is denied.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2449 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2004 Entry ID: 1783006