Case Name: Dashrathabhai Manilal PATEL; Meghana Patel; Ronit Patel, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-30
Citations: 71 F. App'x 306
Docket Number: No. 02-60683
Parties: Dashrathabhai Manilal PATEL; Meghana Patel; Ronit Patel, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 71
Pages: 306–306

Head Matter:
Dashrathabhai Manilal PATEL; Meghana Patel; Ronit Patel, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-60683.
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 30, 2003.
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Dashrathabhai Manilal Patel, a citizen of India, petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") summarily affirming the immigration judge's ("IJ") decision to deny his application for asylum or withholding of removal. Patel argues that the BIA "violated his Fifth Amendment rights by summarily affirming the decision of the IJ without examining the merits of Patel's asylum claim. The court has held that the summary affirmance procedures do not violate due process and do not deprive the court of a basis for judicial review. Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832-33 (5th Cir.2003).
Patel argues that the BIA erred as a matter of law in affirming the I J's decision without an opinion because the case does not meet the requirements for a summary affirmance. Because the decision of the IJ was correct and does not raise any substantial factual or legal questions on appeal, the decision met the criteria for a summary affirmance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7)(ii).
Insofar as Patel challenges the validity of the agency's decision, a review of the record reflects that the decision is supported by substantial evidence and that the evidence in the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 350 (5th Cir.2002); Mikhael v. I.N.S., 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1997). Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.