Gao v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service , 62 F. App'x 524 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1982
MIN WU GAO; BIYUN ZHANG,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE;
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A70-895-403, A70-699-679)
Submitted: April 17, 2003 Decided: May 1, 2003
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jin Tang, LAW OFFICES OF TAN & ASSOCIATES, Rockville, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General,
Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, James A. Hunolt, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Min Wu Gao and Biyun Zhang, natives and citizens of the
People’s Republic of China, petition for review of two separate
orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming
without opinion the immigration judge’s order denying their
applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
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 immigration judge’s conclusion that Gao and Zhang
failed to establish their 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 that Gao and Zhang seek.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.
PETITION DENIED
2