Case ID: f-appx_94/html/0147-01.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

Tekalign N. BEZA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-1592.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 14, 2004.
    Decided: April 6, 2004.
    Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, 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    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Tekalign N. Beza, 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 and order denying Beza’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review.

Beza claims the immigration judge erred in finding he failed to present credible evidence in support of his asylum application. We have reviewed the administrative record and the immigration judge’s decision, which was designated by the Board as the final agency determination, and find that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s conclusion that Beza was not credible. As such, Beza failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution as necessary to qualify for relief from deportation. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b) .(2003).

In addition, we find substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s conclusion that there was no nexus between Beza’s application for asylum and the successful applications filed by his siblings.

Accordingly, we deny Beza’s 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