Case Name: Tsedeke Teshone MEKONNEN, a/k/a Tsedeke Teshone Mekonen, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-29
Citations: 647 F. App'x 220
Docket Number: No. 15-1400
Parties: Tsedeke Teshone MEKONNEN, a/k/a Tsedeke Teshone Mekonen, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 647
Pages: 220–221

Head Matter:
Tsedeke Teshone MEKONNEN, a/k/a Tsedeke Teshone Mekonen, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-1400.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 19, 2016.
Decided: April 29, 2016.
Alan M. Parra, Law Offices of Alan M. Parra, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jesse M. Bless, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lance L. Jolley, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, 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Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Tsedeke Teshone Mekonnen, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's denial of his requests for asylum and withholding of removal. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Mekonnen's merits hearing and all supporting 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) (2012), 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 Mekonnen (B.I.A. Mar. 17, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.
Mekonnen does not challenge the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture. Accordingly, review of that issue is waived. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n. 7 (4th Cir.2004).