Case Name: Mulualem TARELE, 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: 2003-06-26
Citations: 67 F. App'x 825
Docket Number: No. 02-2008
Parties: Mulualem TARELE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 67
Pages: 825–826

Head Matter:
Mulualem TARELE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 02-2008.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2003.
Decided June 26, 2003.
Elizabeth H. McGrail, Washington, D.C.; Richard S. Bromberg, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Senior Litigation Counsel, Nelda C. Reyna, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Mulualem Takele, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board"). The order affirmed, without opinion, the immigration judge's decision ordering Takele's removal to Ethiopia and denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
The decision to grant or deny asylum relief is conclusive "unless manifestly con trary to the law and an abuse of discretion." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2000). We conclude that the record supports the immigration judge's conclusion that Takele failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a) (2002); Gonahasa v. INS, 181 F.3d 538, 541 (4th Cir.1999). As the decision in this case is not manifestly contrary to law, we cannot grant the relief that Takele seeks.
Accordingly, 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.