Worede v. Ashcroft

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 28, 2004
• Docket: 03-1536
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1536

HIWOT WOREDE,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A76-416-564)

Submitted: November 26, 2003 Decided: April 28, 2004

Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

H. Glenn Fogle, Jr., THE FOGLE LAW FIRM, L.L.C., Atlanta, Georgia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Senior Litigation Counsel, Patricia A. Smith, Civil Division, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Hiwot Worede, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(“Board”) affirming an immigration judge’s ruling and denying

relief on her application for asylum and withholding of removal.

We find that the Board’s conclusion that Worede failed to establish

past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution as

necessary to qualify for relief from deportation was not

“manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.” 8

U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2000); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,

481 (1992); Huaman-Cornelio v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d

995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992).

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 -