Confidence Aleru v. John Ashcroft

Eighth Circuit

Confidence Aleru v. John Ashcroft

103 F. App'x 62

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 30, 2004

Docket03-2449

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 103 F. App'x 62 (Confidence Aleru v. John Ashcroft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Confidence Aleru v. John Ashcroft, 103 F. App'x 62 (8th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Confidence Aleru petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed without opinion an Immigration Judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Aleru presents three arguments for reversal. Because her contentions are foreclosed by recent decisions of this court, we deny the petition.

Aleru first argues that the BIA’s decision to affirm without opinion (AWO) did not comply with the governing regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4), because she presented a novel and substantial new argument to the BIA for the first time on appeal, and because the Immigration Judge’s decision was incorrect as a matter of law. This argument is foreclosed by Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 983 (8th Cir.2004), which held that “the BIA’s decision whether to employ the AWO procedure in a particular case is committed to agency discretion and not subject to judicial review.” Second, Aleru claims that the AWO procedure violates the fundamental rule of administrative law that agencies must sufficiently explain their decisions in order to allow for meaningful judicial review. See SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 94-95, 63 S.Ct. 454, 87 L.Ed. 626 (1943); SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196-97, 67 S.Ct. 1575, 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947). We considered and rejected this argument in Ngure, 367 F.3d at 988, because the decision of the immigration judge satisfies the requirement that the agency provide a reasoned explanation for judicial review. Aleru contends that Ngure was wrongly decided, but even if we were inclined to agree, one panel of the court cannot overrule another. United States v. Prior, 107 F.3d 654, 660 (8th Cir.1997). Finally, Aleru argues that the AWO procedure violates her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Like every other circuit to consider the question, we have held the AWO procedure does not violate the Fifth Amendment. Loulou v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 706, 708 (8th Cir.2003).

Accordingly, the petition for review is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Confidence Aleru petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed without opinion an Immigration Judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Aleru presents three arguments for reversal. Because her contentions are foreclosed by recent decisions of this court, we deny the petition.

Aleru first argues that the BIA’s decision to affirm without opinion (AWO) did not comply with the governing regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4), because she presented a novel and substantial new argument to the BIA for the first time on appeal, and because the Immigration Judge’s decision was incorrect as a matter of law. This argument is foreclosed by Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 983 (8th Cir.2004), which held that “the BIA’s decision whether to employ the AWO procedure in a particular case is committed to agency discretion and not subject to judicial review.” Second, Aleru claims that the AWO procedure violates the fundamental rule of administrative law that agencies must sufficiently explain their decisions in order to allow for meaningful judicial review. See SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 94-95, 63 S.Ct. 454, 87 L.Ed. 626 (1943); SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196-97, 67 S.Ct. 1575, 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947). We considered and rejected this argument in Ngure, 367 F.3d at 988, because the decision of the immigration judge satisfies the requirement that the agency provide a reasoned explanation for judicial review. Aleru contends that Ngure was wrongly decided, but even if we were inclined to agree, one panel of the court cannot overrule another. United States v. Prior, 107 F.3d 654, 660 (8th Cir.1997). Finally, Aleru argues that the AWO procedure violates her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Like every other circuit to consider the question, we have held the AWO procedure does not violate the Fifth Amendment. Loulou v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 706, 708 (8th Cir.2003).

Accordingly, the petition for review is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 F. App'x 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/confidence-aleru-v-john-ashcroft-ca8-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack