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


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-1802
    FREHIWOT AYELE,
    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. (A75-363-823)
    Submitted:   March 18, 2003                 Decided:   March 26, 2003
    Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Manuel Rivera, Jr., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert D.
    McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr.,
    Senior Litigation Counsel, Russell J.E. Verby, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Frehiwot Ayele, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, seeks review
    of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) decision and order
    affirming, without opinion, her appeal from the immigration judge’s
    order finding her removable and denying her applications for asylum
    and withholding of removal.
    On appeal, Ayele claims that the Board erred in affirming the
    decision of the immigration judge without opinion, after review by
    a single Board member, in accordance with the procedure set out in
    
    8 C.F.R. § 3.1
    (a)(7) (2002).   We have reviewed the administrative
    record and the formal briefs on appeal and find Ayele’s challenges
    to the Board’s use of the streamlined review procedure to be
    without merit. See Albathani v. INS, 
    318 F.3d 365
    , 375-79 (1st Cir.
    2003).   We further find that summary affirmance was appropriate in
    this case under the factors set forth in § 3.1(a)(7)(ii).
    Accordingly, we deny Ayele’s 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-1802

Judges: Wilkinson, Williams, Hamilton

Filed Date: 3/26/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024