Case Name: Frehiwot AYELE, 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: 2003-03-26
Citations: 59 F. App'x 604
Docket Number: No. 02-1802
Parties: Frehiwot AYELE, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 59
Pages: 604–604

Head Matter:
Frehiwot AYELE, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Respondents.
No. 02-1802.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2003.
Decided March 26, 2003.
Manuel Rivera, Jr., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Senior Litigation, Russell J.E. Verby, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Frehiwot Ayele, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("Board") decision and order affirming, without opinion, her appeal from the immigration judge's order finding her removable and denying her applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
On appeal, Ayele claims that the Board erred in affirming the decision of the immigration judge without opinion, after review by a single Board member, in accordance with the procedure set out in 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7) (2002). We have reviewed the administrative record and the formal briefs on appeal and find Ayele's challenges to the Board's use of the streamlined review procedure to be without merit. See Albathani v. INS, 318 F.3d 365, 375-79 (1st Cir.2003). We further find that summary affirmance was appropriate in this case under the factors set forth in § 3.1(a)(7)(ii).
Accordingly, we deny Ayele'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.