Negusse v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1769
MEHARI GILAMARIAM NEGUSSE,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE;
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A76-908-300)
Submitted: March 18, 2003 Decided: March 26, 2003
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Kantor, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert D.
McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, John C. Cunningham,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Shelley R. Goad, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Civil Division, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mehari Gilamariam Negusse, a native and citizen of Eritrea,
seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
summarily affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his
applications for asylum and withholding of removal.* We reject
Negusse’s challenge to the summary affirmance without opinion
procedure authorized in 8 C.F.R. 3.1(a)(7) (2002). See Albathani
v. INS, 318 F.3d 365, 376-79 (1st Cir. 2003).
The decision to grant or deny asylum relief is conclusive
“unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.”
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2000). We conclude that the record
supports the IJ’s conclusion that Negusse failed to establish his
eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a) (2002); Gonahasa
v. INS, 181 F.3d 538, 541 (4th Cir. 1999). As the decision in this
case is not manifestly contrary to law, we cannot grant the relief
Negusse seeks.
We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
*
As Negusse does not argue withholding of removal on appeal,
we do not address it.
2