Court Opinion

ID: 1000360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:39:10.811494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:15.215227
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL DWUMFOUR,
Petitioner,

v.
                                                                     No. 99-1520
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION
SERVICE,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
(A70-848-522)

Submitted: November 16, 1999

Decided: December 2, 1999

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, Arlington, Vir-
ginia, for Petitioner. David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Terri J. Scadron, Senior Litigation Counsel, John D. Wil-
liams, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Dwumfour seeks a review of the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) denying relief on his application for
asylum, withholding of deportation, and suspension of deportation.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) authorizes the Attorney
General, in her discretion, to confer asylum on any refugee. See 8
U.S.C.A. § 1158(a) (West 1999). The Act defines a refugee as a per-
son unwilling or unable to return to his native country "because of
persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or polit-
ical opinion." 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (West 1999); M.A. v. INS,
899 F.2d 304, 307 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc).

We must uphold the Board's determination that Dwumfour is not
eligible for asylum if the determination is "supported by reasonable,
substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a
whole." 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) (1994). The decision may be reversed
only if the evidence presented by Dwumfour was such that a reason-
able fact finder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of per-
secution existed. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

We have reviewed the record and find that the Board's conclusion
that Dwumfour failed to present reliable evidence sufficient to estab-
lish eligibility for asylum is supported by substantial evidence.
Because Dwumfour failed to show entitlement to asylum, he cannot
meet the higher standard for withholding deportation. See INS v.
Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430-32 (1987). We do not address
the Board's decision denying Dwumfour's application for suspension
of deportation because it has not been raised on appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2