
    Savuth MOA; Paov Kong, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-60658.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 16, 2003.
    Brian K. Bates, Imran B. Mirza, Quan, Burdette & Perez, Houston, TX, for Petitioners.
    Anthony Cardozo Payne, David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Anthony W. Norwood, Terri Jane Scadron, Jennifer Parker, John Ashcroft, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, Houston, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Before SMITH, DEMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Savuth Moa and his wife, Paov Kong, petition this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying them asylum. They argue that the summary-affirmance procedure employed by the BIA violates due process; however, this court has rejected such argument. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003).

They also argue that the decision denying them asylum was not supported by substantial evidence. However, they have not presented evidence which compels a determination that they have a well-founded fear of persecution based on Kong’s Chinese ancestry or their political opposition to Communism. Nor have the couple presented facts suggesting that the alleged problems they suffered in the past, ie, the “extraction” of money, were related to Kong’s Chinese ancestry or their opposition to Communism. Because the petitioners have not met their burden of showing that the denial of asylum was not supported by substantial evidence, their petition is DENIED. Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir.1994).

The Respondent’s motion for summary affirmance of the BIA’s decision and its various motions regarding briefing are DENIED as unnecessary.

PETITION DENIED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     