Case Name: Anissa A. IDRIS, 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: 2001-11-15
Citations: 21 F. App'x 228
Docket Number: No. 01-1413
Parties: Anissa A. IDRIS, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 21
Pages: 228–228

Head Matter:
Anissa A. IDRIS, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Respondents.
No. 01-1413.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 31, 2001.
Decided Nov. 15, 2001.
Rev. Uduak J. Ubom, Washington, DC, for petitioner.
Stuart E. Schiffer, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, Cindy S. Ferrier, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondents.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Anissa A. Idris, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her application for asylum and withholding of deportation. The Board concluded that Idris failed to present credible evidence to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground that would make her eligible for asylum relief. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1158 (West 1999); 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (West 1999 & Supp.2001). The Board's decision to grant or deny asylum relief is conclusive "unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion." 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (West 1999). We find that the Board correctly applied the law and did not abuse its discretion in rendering its decision here. Therefore, we deny a petition for review on the reasoning of the Board. Idris v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Serv., BIA No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 28, 2001). 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.