Case Name: Mehari Gilamariam NEGUSSE, 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 603
Docket Number: No. 02-1769
Parties: Mehari Gilamariam NEGUSSE, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 59
Pages: 603–604

Head Matter:
Mehari Gilamariam NEGUSSE, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Respondents.
No. 02-1769.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2003.
Decided March 26, 2003.
Jeffrey Kantor, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, John C. Cunningham, Senior Litigation, Shelley R. Goad, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Mehari Gilamariam Negusse, a native and citizen of Eritrea, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming the immigration judge's (IJ's) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We reject Negusse's challenge to the summary affirmance without opinion procedure au thorized in 8 C.F.R. 8.1(a)(7) (2002). See Albathani v. INS, 318 F.3d 365, 376-79 (1st Cir.2003).
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 conclude that the record supports the IJ's conclusion that Negusse 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 Negusse seeks.
We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.
As Negusse does not argue withholding of removal on appeal, we do not address it.