Vu v. Gonzales

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 14, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-60557
Summary Calendar
DINH XUAN VU,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A25 142 328
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dinh Xuan Vu petitions for review of an order by the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which denied his request for relief
under former Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(c), former 8
U.S.C. § 1182(c). Vu argues that the immigration judge (IJ)
erred when he precluded any witnesses other than Vu from
testifying on Vu’s behalf and that this error violated Vu’s due
process right to fundamental fairness.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-60557
-2-
This court does not have to determine whether the IJ erred
because there was substantial evidence in the record before the
BIA to support the BIA’s conclusion that Vu’s positive equities
were outweighed by his negative attributes. See Chun v. INS, 40
F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). Vu is not entitled to relief since
he is unable to establish that any error made his hearing
fundamentally unfair, might have led to the denial of justice, or
caused him substantial prejudice. See Anwar v. INS, 116 F.3d
140, 144 (5th Cir. 1997); Animashaun v. INS, 990 F.2d 234, 238
(5th Cir. 1993).
Vu also argues the IJ mistakenly determined that Vu’s prior
§ 212(c) waiver made him ineligible for a § 212(c) waiver now.
The IJ did not make such a determination; he found that Vu did
not deserve another opportunity to remain in the country.
Accordingly, Vu’s petition for review is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --