Sozonov v. Ashcroft , 114 F. App'x 584 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-1345
    ALEXANDER YURYEVICH SOZONOV,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    JOHN D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals. (A79-470-758)
    Submitted:   November 5, 2004          Decided:     December 10, 2004
    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Alberto   Manuel  Benitez,   THE  GEORGE   WASHINGTON   UNIVERSITY
    IMMIGRATION CLINIC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.     Peter D.
    Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant
    Director, Aviva L. Poczter, Office of Immigration Litigation,
    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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Alexander Yuryevich Sozonov, a native and citizen of
    Russia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
    (“Board”) order affirming the immigration judge’s decision denying
    asylum, withholding of removal and withholding under the Convention
    Against Torture.     For the reasons discussed below, we deny the
    petition for review.
    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 have reviewed the Board’s
    decision   and     the    immigration     judge’s    decision     and    the
    administrative record and find the record supports the conclusion
    that Sozonov failed to establish eligibility for asylum on a
    protected ground.    See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1208.13
    (a) (2004) (stating that
    the burden of proof is on the alien to establish his eligibility
    for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 
    502 U.S. 478
    , 483 (1992).
    Because the decision in this case is not manifestly contrary to
    law, we cannot grant the relief Sozonov seeks.*
    Accordingly,    we   deny    the   petition   for   review.   We
    dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
    *
    Sozonov fails to challenge the Board’s denial of his
    applications for withholding from removal and withholding under the
    Convention Against Torture. Accordingly, he has abandoned any such
    challenge.
    - 2 -
    are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    PETITION DENIED
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-1345

Citation Numbers: 114 F. App'x 584

Judges: Luttig, Michael, King

Filed Date: 12/10/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024