Case Name: Feruza Aman HUSEIN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-01-13
Citations: 85 F. App'x 883
Docket Number: No. 03-1431
Parties: Feruza Aman HUSEIN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: Before WIDENER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 85
Pages: 883–884

Head Matter:
Feruza Aman HUSEIN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 03-1431.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2003.
Decided Jan. 13, 2004.
Salim Ah, Becker, Hadeed, Kellogg & Berry, P.C., Springfield, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant Director, Christopher C. Fuller, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WIDENER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Feruza Aman Husein, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the immigration judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Husein contends that she provided detailed, consistent and plausible testimony sufficient to support her asylum claim. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1158 (West 1999 & Supp.2003); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2000). We have reviewed the record, the immigration judge's decision, and the Board's conclusion, and find that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge in his ruling that Husein failed to establish refugee status. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (2000); see Matter of Y-B-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1136, 1139, 1998 WL 99554 (BIA 1998); Matter of S-M-J-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 722, 724-26, 1997 WL 80984 (BIA 1997). Therefore, 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
Husein failed to argue her right to the latter two forms of relief on appeal, and thus has waived the issues. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(6); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999); 11126 Baltimore Blvd., Inc. v. Prince George's County, Md., 58 F.3d 988, 993 n. 7 (4th Cir.1995).