Case Name: Asrat Awoke CHERU, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-25
Citations: 120 F. App'x 451
Docket Number: No. 03-1381
Parties: Asrat Awoke CHERU, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 451–452

Head Matter:
Asrat Awoke CHERU, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-1381.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 3, 2004.
Decided Jan. 25, 2005.
Asrat Awoke Cheru, Petitioner pro se. Raymond Smith, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Arlington, Virginia; Emily Anne Radford, Terri Leon-Benner, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Asrat Awoke Cheru, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order affirming without opinion the immigration judge's decision denying asylum and with holding from removal. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review.
The decision to grant or deny asylum relief is conclusive "unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2000). We have reviewed the immigration judge's decision and the administrative record and find the record supports the conclusion that Cheru failed to establish past persecution or a well founded fear of persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2004) (stating that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish his eligibility for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Because the decision in this case is not manifestly contrary to law, we cannot grant the relief Cheru 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
Cheru does not challenge the denial of his application for withholding from removal.