
    Alexie KROUPKO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-60021.
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 30, 2003.
    Michael R. Stahl, Law Offices of Michael R. Stahl, Anchorage, AK, for Petitioner.
    Anthony Cardozo Payne, US Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, US Department of Justice, Civil Division Immigration Litigation, John Ashcroft, pro se, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Kenneth L. Pasquarell, Acting District Director, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, San Antonio, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM

Alexie Kroupko petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision to deny his application for asylum or withholding of deportation. Kroupko argues that the errors and irregularities in his proceedings before the IJ and the BIA violated his right to due process. He contends further that he has established past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution if he were to return to Russia.

Kroupko is unable to carry his burden of showing that he was substantially prejudiced by the alleged error and irregularities in his proceedings, nor is he able to “make a prima facie showing that he was eligible for asylum and that he could have made a strong showing in support of his application.” See Anwar v. INS, 116 F.3d 140, 144 (5th Cir.1997). Furthermore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen Kroupko’s case. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 904 (5th Cir.2002).

The BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and the evidence in the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 350 (5th Cir.2002); Girma v. INS, 283 F.3d 664, 669 (5th Cir.2002). Consequently, Kroupko also has not made the requisite showing for withholding of removal. See Girma, 283 F.3d at 666-67. Accordingly, the 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     