Case Name: Mahad Dhore DHUBOW, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-20
Citations: 108 F. App'x 444
Docket Number: No. 03-71742, A75-638-554
Parties: Mahad Dhore DHUBOW, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 108
Pages: 444–444

Head Matter:
Mahad Dhore DHUBOW, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-71742, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 9, 2004.
Decided Aug. 20, 2004.
Steve Paek, Law Office of Steve Paek, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Jennifer Paisner, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mahad Dhore Dhubow, a native and citizen of Somalia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming an immigration judge's decision that he is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir.1999). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that Dhubow failed to establish eligibility for asylum by presenting "credible, direct, and specific evidence" in support of his claim. See id.
No issues relating to the injunction in place in Ali v. Ashcroft, 346 F.3d 873, 886 (9th Cir.2003), are before us.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.