Case Name: Tamiru Hailemariam YIRBERO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-03
Citations: 611 F. App'x 144
Docket Number: No. 15-1036
Parties: Tamiru Hailemariam YIRBERO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Respondent.
Judges: Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 611
Pages: 144–145

Head Matter:
Tamiru Hailemariam YIRBERO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Respondent.
No. 15-1036.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 1, 2015.
Decided: Aug. 3, 2015.
David R. Saffold, Saffold & Associates, LLC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wer-nery, Assistant Director, Matthew Metsa Downer, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tamiru Hailemariam Yirbero, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Yirbero's merits hearing, his asylum application, and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Yirbero (B.I.A. Dec. 10, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.