Case Name: Ilesanmi Odunwole LAROJA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-08
Citations: 67 F. App'x 826
Docket Number: No. 02-1785
Parties: Ilesanmi Odunwole LAROJA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 67
Pages: 826–827

Head Matter:
Ilesanmi Odunwole LAROJA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-1785.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 19, 2003.
Decided July 8, 2003.
Joshua A. Moses, Joshua Moses & Associates, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Senior Litigation, Audrey B. Hemesath, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Ilesanmi Odunwole Laroja, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of asylum and withholding of removal.
Laroja challenges the IJ's negative credibility finding, asserting that the IJ misunderstood his testimony, placed too much weight on minor inconsistencies, and that the IJ's findings were contrary to the evidence in the record. We have thoroughly reviewed the record in light of the IJ's findings and conclude that Lar oja's assertions are without merit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (2000); Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 323 (4th Cir.2002); Matter of S-A-, Int. Dec. 3433 (BIA 2000); Matter of A-S-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1106 (BIA 1998).
Laroja also contends that the Board abused its discretion in affirming the IJ's findings without opinion and failed to properly evaluate his appeal. As these claims are merely mentioned in Lar oja's brief and are entirely undeveloped, we find that they have been abandoned. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999).
We accordingly deny Laroja's petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.