Case Name: Sabahudin LJULJANOVIC, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-30
Citations: 79 F. App'x 641
Docket Number: No. 02-61018
Parties: Sabahudin LJULJANOVIC, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 79
Pages: 641–642

Head Matter:
Sabahudin LJULJANOVIC, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-61018.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 30, 2003.
Fakhri W. Yono, West Bloomfield, MI, for Petitioner.
Anthony Cardozo Payne, US Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, John Ashcroft, pro se, US Department of Justice, Allen W. Hausman, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, US Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, for Respondents.
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Sabahudin Ljuljanovic petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming the immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of relief. The IJ denied Ljuljanovic's requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Ljuljanovic argues that: (1) the BIA violated his due process rights by summarily affirming the IJ's decision; (2) the IJ erred in concluding that he failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution; and (3) the IJ erred in concluding that he was not entitled to relief under the CAT.
Ljuljanovic's due process challenge to the BIA's summary affirmance procedure is without merit. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832-33 (5th Cir.2003).
The IJ's finding regarding that Ljuljanovic failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution was based upon Ljuljanovic's overall lack of knowledge concerning the political and social changes in Montenegro. This conclusion was based on the evidence presented and is substantially reasonable. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir.1996). Accordingly, the IJ's determination must be upheld. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir.2002).
Ljuljanovic also argues that the IJ erred in denying him relief under the CAT. Considering the evidence presented, the record does not compel the finding that Ljuljanovic met his burden to show that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured in Montenegro. See id. at 907.
Accordingly, Ljuljanovic's 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.