Endale v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service , 54 F. App'x 179 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1359
MESFIN ENDALE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE;
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondents - Appellees.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A72-369-168)
Submitted: October 31, 2002 Decided: January 13, 2003
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mikre-Michael Ayele, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert
D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford,
Assistant Director, James A. Hunolt, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mesfin Endale, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, seeks review
of the March 8, 2000, decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of asylum and
withholding of deportation. The Board also, by order of March 8,
2002, denied Endale’s timely motion to reconsider. Endale’s
petition for review is untimely as to the March 8, 2000 order. See
Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405-06 (1995).
Endale’s petition for review is timely as to the Board’s
denial of his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the
record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse
its discretion, see 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(a) (2002), in concluding that,
based on changed conditions in Ethiopia, Endale did not have a
well-founded fear of persecution or entitlement to asylum based on
past persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b) (2002); Gonohasa v. INS,
181 F.3d 538, 541-42 (4th Cir. 1999).
We deny as untimely the petition for review as to the Board’s
order of March 8, 2000. We deny the petition for review of the
March 8, 2002, order upon finding that the Board did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration. 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