Case Name: Gheorghe Vasile CRETU, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-18
Citations: 100 F. App'x 991
Docket Number: No. 03-60823
Parties: Gheorghe Vasile CRETU, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 100
Pages: 991–992

Head Matter:
Gheorghe Vasile CRETU, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-60823.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 18, 2004.
Thomas Perrill Adams, Law Office of Thomas P. Adams, New Orleans, LA, for Petitioner.
David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Anthony W. Norwood, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Terri Jane Scadron, John Ashcroft, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gheorghe Cretu, a citizen of Romania, petitions for review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA held that Cretu was not denied procedural due process on account of alleged deficiencies in the translation of his trial before the Immigration Judge (IJ) because no alleged translation problem concerned the basis of the IJ's decision. Cretu does not appeal the IJ's decision that denied asylum on grounds of an untimely application, denied withholding of deportation, and granted voluntary departure.
This court reviews a claim of a due process violation de novo. Ogbemudia v. INS, 988 F.2d 595, 598 (5th Cir.1993). Proving such a claim "requires a showing of substantial prejudice." Chike v. INS, 948 F.2d 961, 962 (5th Cir.1991) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because any deficiencies in translation did not concern the grounds for the IJ's decision, there was no "substantial prejudice." Accordingly, Cretu's petition for review is DENIED.
PETITION FOR REVIEW 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.