UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2077
SOSENA MENGESHA,
Petititoner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United
States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A75-33-9707)
Submitted: July 16, 2003 Decided: August 6, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert M. Price, LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT M. PRICE, P.C., Washington,
D.C., for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney
General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Joshua E.
Braunstein, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
PER CURIAM:
Sosena Mengesha, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”). The order affirmed, without opinion, the immigration
judge’s order denying Mengesha’s applications for asylum and
withholding of removal.
On appeal, Mengesha’s sole claim is that the Board erred in
designating her case as appropriate for affirmance without opinion,
after review by a single Board member, in accordance with the
procedure set out in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7) (2003). This section
allows a single Board member to enter an order affirming the result
of the immigration judge’s decision if the result reached is
correct; any errors are harmless or nonmaterial; and either the
issue on appeal is squarely controlled by Board or federal circuit
court precedent and does not involve application of precedent to a
novel fact situation, or the factual and legal questions raised are
so insubstantial that three-member review is not warranted. 8
C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7)(ii). We reject Mengesha’s challenges to the
Board’s use of the procedure in her case based on our finding that
summary affirmance was appropriate in this case under the factors
set forth in § 1003.1(a)(7)(ii).
Accordingly, we deny Mengesha’s petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
2
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3