Takele v. Ashcroft

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2008
MULUALEM TAKELE,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United
States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A75-362-452)
Submitted: June 18, 2003 Decided: June 26, 2003
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elizabeth H. McGrail, Washington, D.C.; Richard S. Bromberg,
Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr.,
Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Nelda C. Reyna, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mulualem Takele, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”). The order affirmed, without opinion, the immigration
judge’s decision ordering Takele’s removal to Ethiopia and denying
his applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
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 conclude that the record
supports the immigration judge’s conclusion that Takele failed to
establish his eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a)
(2002); Gonahasa v. INS, 181 F.3d 538, 541 (4th Cir. 1999). As the
decision in this case is not manifestly contrary to law, we cannot
grant the relief that Takele seeks.
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