Cetin v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service , 53 F. App'x 699 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1315
MUSTAFA CETIN; SEVIL CETIN,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE;
JOHN ASHCROFT,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A73-005-343, A73-005-344)
Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: January 6, 2003
Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eliot Norman, Patricia A. Collins, MCCANDLISH HOLTON, P.C.,
Richmond, Virginia, for Petitioners. Robert D. McCallum, Jr.,
Assistant Attorney General, Christopher C. Fuller, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Jennifer A. Parker, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mustafa Cetin and Sevil Cetin, natives and citizens of Turkey,
petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board) adopting the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) and
denying Mustafa Cetin’s application for asylum and withholding of
deportation.* We have reviewed the administrative record and find
that substantial evidence supports the Board’s and IJ’s conclusion
that Cetin failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution
necessary to qualify for relief from deportation. See 8 U.S.C.A.
§ 1105a(a)(4) (1994); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(i) (2001); Huaman-
Cornelio v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th
Cir. 1992); M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 307, 313 & n.6 (4th Cir.
1990) (en banc).
Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s order. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
Sevil Cetin’s claim is derivative of her husband’s claim for
asylum.
2