Case Name: Min Wu GAO; Biyun Zhang, Petitioners, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-01
Citations: 62 F. App'x 524
Docket Number: No. 02-1982
Parties: Min Wu GAO; Biyun Zhang, Petitioners, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Respondents.
Judges: •Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 62
Pages: 524–524

Head Matter:
Min Wu GAO; Biyun Zhang, Petitioners, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Respondents.
No. 02-1982.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2003.
Decided May 1, 2003.
Jin Tang, Law Offices of Tan & Associates, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, James A. Hunolt, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
•Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Min Wu Gao and Biyun Zhang, natives and citizens of the People's Republic of China, petition for review of two separate orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") affirming without opinion the immigration judge's order denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
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 Gao and Zhang failed to establish their eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a) (2002); 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 Gao and Zhang seek.
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.