Case ID: f-appx_86/html/0602-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gezachew Dessalegne SENEGBE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
    No. 02-2146.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 1, 2003.
    Decided Feb. 4, 2004.
    C. Benjamin Guile, III, Decatur, Georgia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Michele Y.F. Sarko, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Gezachew Dessalegne Senegbe, 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 order denying Senegbe’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition for review.

Senegbe challenges the immigration judge’s finding that he failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. 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 Senegbe failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2003); 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 Senegbe seeks. Accordingly, we deny Senegbe’s petition for review and deny Senegbe’s motion to reopen and remand. 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