Case Name: Meheret GETAHUN, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; John Ashcroft, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-02-14
Citations: 56 F. App'x 138
Docket Number: No. 02-1772
Parties: Meheret GETAHUN, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; John Ashcroft, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 56
Pages: 138–139

Head Matter:
Meheret GETAHUN, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; John Ashcroft, Respondents.
No. 02-1772.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 23, 2003.
Decided Feb. 14, 2003.
Lynda V. Rice, Carolyn C. Eaglin & Associates, Alexandria, Virginia; Arthur D. Wright, III, The Wright Law Network, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Michele Y.F. Sarko, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Meheret Getahun, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings based on a claim for protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Getahun contends that the Board improperly applied the asylum standard in assessing this claim and faded to give proper weight to relevant country conditions in finding that she failed to establish a prima facie case that it is more likely than not she would suffer torture if she returned to Ethiopia. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board's decision. We conclude that the Board applied the correct standard in evaluating Getahun's claim, and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. See Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir.1999); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) (2002).
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.