Weldesenbet v. Gonzales ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1483
THOMAS AYALEW WELDESENBET,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-263-107)
Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided: January 4, 2007
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andres Cayetano Benach, MAGGIO & KATTAR, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carol
Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Judith A. Hagley, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Ayalew Weldesenbet, a native and citizen of
Ethiopia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“Board”) order denying his motion to remand and dismissing his
appeal from the immigration judge’s order denying his applications
for withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition for review.
We review the Board’s denial of a motion to remand for
abuse of discretion. See Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 408
(4th Cir. 2005) (setting forth standard of review). Whether
Weldesenbet’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim rises to the
level of a due process claim is reviewed de novo. Figeroa v. INS,
886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). We find the Board did not err in
determining whether Weldesenbet was prejudiced by counsel’s alleged
ineffective assistance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (2006);
Savino v. Murray, 82 F.3d 593, 598 (4th Cir. 1996). We further
agree with the Board that Weldesenbet failed to establish
prejudice.
In addition, we find the immigration judge used the
proper analysis in determining whether Weldesenbet was entitled to
withholding from removal and substantial evidence supports the
finding that there was a fundamental change of circumstances.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -