Case Name: Tibebu Hailu BEYENE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-04
Citations: 539 F. App'x 139
Docket Number: No. 13-1003
Parties: Tibebu Hailu BEYENE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before SHEDD and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 539
Pages: 139–140

Head Matter:
Tibebu Hailu BEYENE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-1003.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 20, 2013.
Decided: Sept. 4, 2013.
James A. Roberts, Law Office of James A. Roberts, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Heba Tellawi, Brianne Whelan Cohen, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before SHEDD and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tibebu Hailu Beyene, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's decision denying his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the various documentary exhibits relevant to country conditions in Ethiopia, the transcript of Beyene's merits hearing, and Beyene's supporting affidavit and evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006), and that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Beyene (B.I.A. Dec. 12, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten tions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.