Case Name: Sokol DODAJ, a/k/a Artur Koci, Petitioner, 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: 2002-04-19
Citations: 32 F. App'x 694
Docket Number: No. 01-2126
Parties: Sokol DODAJ, a/k/a Artur Koci, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 32
Pages: 694–694

Head Matter:
Sokol DODAJ, a/k/a Artur Koci, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Respondents.
No. 01-2126.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 20, 2002.
Decided April 19, 2002.
John William O’Leary, John O’Leary & Associates, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Sokal Dodaj, a native and citizen of Albania, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying relief from removal. The Board's determination that Dodaj is not eligible for asylum must be upheld unless that determination is "manifestly contrary to law." 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(b)(4)(C) (West 1999).
We have reviewed the administrative record and find no error in the Board's conclusion that Dodaj failed to establish eligibility as a refugee in order to qualify for relief from removal. 8 U.S.C.A § 1101(a)(42)(A) (West 1999); M.A. v. U.S. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 307 (4th Cir.1990) (en banc). In addition, Dodaj's claim that gaps in the transcript require remand was not raised before the Board and has thus been waived. Gandarillas-Zambrana v. BIA, 44 F.3d 1251, 1255 (4th Cir.1995); Farrokhi v. U.S. INS, 900 F.2d 697, 700-01 (4th Cir.1990).
We accordingly affirm the Board's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.