Court Opinion

ID: 1021779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:12:04.612859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:13:58.051897
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-1718

PATIENCE DOROTHY MONYEI, a/k/a Dorothy Monyei,

                                                          Petitioner,

          versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the
United States,

                                                          Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-305-161)

Submitted:   January 31, 2007          Decided:     February 13, 2007

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert A. Remes, CARLINER & REMES, P.C., Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Brianne Whelan, OFFICE OF
IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Patience Dorothy Monyei, a native and citizen of Nigeria,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (Board) adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s

order denying relief from removal.          Monyei contends that the Board

and   Immigration   Judge   erred    in     finding   her   ineligible   for

withholding of removal.

           “To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must

show that he faces a clear probability of persecution because of

his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social

group, or political opinion.”       Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13

(4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)).

Having conducted our review, we conclude that substantial evidence

supports the finding that Monyei failed to establish eligibility

for withholding of removal.

           We accordingly 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

                                    - 2 -