Case Name: Francisco Antonio JUAN, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; The United States Attorney General, John Ashcroft, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-01-22
Citations: 55 F. App'x 139
Docket Number: No. 02-1568
Parties: Francisco Antonio JUAN, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; The United States Attorney General, John Ashcroft, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 55
Pages: 139–139

Head Matter:
Francisco Antonio JUAN, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; The United States Attorney General, John Ashcroft, Respondents.
No. 02-1568.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2002.
Decided Jan. 22, 2003.
Donald L. Schlemmer, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Marion E. Guyton, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Antonio Francisco Juan, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") affirming without opinion the immigration judge's order finding Juan removable and denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. The Board and immigration judge's determination that Juan is not eligible for asylum must be upheld unless that determination is "manifestly contrary to law." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(C) (2000). We have reviewed the administrative record and find no error in the Board and immigration judge's conclusion that Juan failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2000); M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 307 (4th Cir.1990) (en banc). Accordingly, we deny Juan's 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.