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

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1772
MEHERET GETAHUN,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE;
JOHN ASHCROFT,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A74-290-637)
Submitted: January 23, 2003 Decided: February 14, 2003
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lynda V. Rice, CAROLYN C. EAGLIN & ASSOCIATES, Alexandria,
Virginia; Arthur D. Wright, III, THE WRIGHT LAW NETWORK,
Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr.,
Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director,
Michele Y. F. Sarko, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil
Division, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Meheret Getahun, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions
for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board) denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings based
on a claim for protection under the United Nations Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment. Getahun contends that the Board improperly applied the
asylum standard in assessing this claim and failed to give proper
weight to relevant country conditions in finding that she failed to
establish a prima facie case that it is more likely than not she
would suffer torture if she returned to Ethiopia. We have reviewed
the administrative record and the Board’s decision. We conclude
that the Board applied the correct standard in evaluating Getahun’s
claim, and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to
reopen. See Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999); 8
C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) (2002).
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