Ibrahim v. Ashcroft

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1725
AMIR HUSSEIN HABIB IBRAHIM; M. A. IBRAHIM; M.
A. IBRAHIM; ESHRAGA SALAH MABROUK,
Petitioners,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United
States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-220-739; A95-220-740; A95-220-741; A95-220-742)
Submitted: December 10, 2004 Decided: January 11, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael M. Hadeed, Jr., BECKER, HADEED, KELLOGG & BERRY, P.C.,
Springfield, Virginia, for Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler,
Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director,
Edward C. Durant, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Amir Hussein Habib Ibrahim (“Ibrahim”), his wife, Eshraga
Salah Mabrouk, and their two minor children, citizens of Sudan,
petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s order denying
Ibrahim’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
Ibrahim is the primary applicant for asylum; the claims of his wife
and children are derivative of his application. See 8 U.S.C.A.
§ 1158(b)(3) (West 1999 & Supp. 2004); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21(a)
(2004).
In his petition for review, Ibrahim disputes the
immigration judge’s finding that he was firmly resettled in the
United Arab Emirates. We have reviewed the administrative record
and find no error in the immigration judge’s conclusion that
Ibrahim was firmly resettled and is thus ineligible for asylum.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(vi) (2000); Mussie v. INS, 172 F.3d
329, 331-32 (4th Cir. 1999). Ibrahim also takes issue with the
immigration judge’s finding that his claims lacked credibility and
contends that he suffered past persecution and faces future
persecution in Sudan due to his political beliefs. As the firm
resettlement bar to asylum applies here and Ibrahim is therefore
ineligible for asylum, we need not address these additional claims.
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 -