Case Name: Katungu NGELEZA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-02
Citations: 86 F. App'x 714
Docket Number: No. 03-60020
Parties: Katungu NGELEZA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 86
Pages: 714–714

Head Matter:
Katungu NGELEZA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-60020.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 2, 2004.
Lloyd F. Ukwu, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Anne M. Estrada, Dallas, TX, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, Ann Carroll Varnon, John Ashcroft, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Katunga Ngeleza, a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo, formerly Zaire, appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming the order denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. She argues that the Immigration Judge ("IJ") erred in determining that filed a frivolous asylum application and lied under oath. She further argues that the IJ violated her due process rights by allowing an incompetent interpretation of the proceedings, over her objection.
The IJ's determination that Ngeleza filed a frivolous asylum application and lied under oath is supported by substantial evidence. See Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir.2003). Ngeleza has not provided this court with compelling evidence warranting reversal of the IJ's determination. Id.
Ngeleza's due process argument is without merit. Our review of the record reveals that Ngeleza did not object to the testimony at issue. Moreover, she cannot demonstrate that she was substantially prejudiced by the interpretation. Anwar v. INS, 116 F.3d 140, 144 (5th Cir.1997). Accordingly, her 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.