Rukandira v. Ashcroft

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 17, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-60397
Summary Calendar
DEOGRATIAS RUKANDIRA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A78 600 767
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Deogratias Rukandira, a citizen of Burundi, petitions for
review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”). The BIA’s decision affirmed, without opinion, the
decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) that denied Rukandira
asylum and withholding of removal. Rukandira’s motion for
appointment of counsel is DENIED.

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 03-60397
-2-
Rukandira contends that the BIA’s affirmance without opinion
deprived him of due process. We have rejected this argument.
Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832-33 (5th Cir. 2003).
Rukandira asserts that he established past persecution and
that a well-founded fear of persecution. He asserts that from
October 1998 to August 2000, his home was burglarized, he was
assaulted in the street, his wife was attacked and injured in an
automobile accident, he received threatening phone calls, and a
grenade exploded near his home. Rukandira argues that persons paid
by the Government perpetrated these incidents because Rukandira was
affiliated with and supported the Av-Intwari party.
We review legal conclusions de novo and findings of fact for
substantial evidence. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444
(5th Cir. 2001). We will not reverse a BIA decision unless the
evidence is “‘so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder could
conclude against it.’” Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 419 (5th
Cir. 2003).
To establish eligibility for asylum, an alien must demonstrate
that he was persecuted or that he has a well-founded fear of
persecution on account of “race, religion, nationality, membership
in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Lopez-Gomez,
263 F.3d at 444-45. Persecution is the “infliction of suffering or
harm, under government sanction.” Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d
579, 583 (5th Cir. 1996). A fear is considered well-founded if the
alien can establish, to a reasonable degree, that his return to his

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 03-60397
-3-
country would be intolerable. Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 305
(5th Cir. 1997).
The IJ concluded that Rukandira did not establish past
persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on any of
the statutorily-enumerated grounds. After reviewing the record and
the briefs, we conclude that the IJ’s decision as adopted by the
BIA is supported by substantial evidence and that the record does
not compel a contrary conclusion. See Moin, 335 F.3d at 419;
Lopez-Gomez, 263 F.3d at 444-45.
The standard for withholding of removal is more stringent than
the standard for granting asylum. Mikhael, 115 F.3d at 306.
Rukandira had to show that a clear probability exists that he will
be persecuted if he is removed. Id. Rukandira did not make the
required showing for asylum; thus, he is not eligible for
withholding of removal. Id. at 306 & n.10. Accordingly,
Rukandira’s petition for review is DENIED.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --