UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2146
GEZACHEW DESSALEGNE SENEGBE,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United
States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-588-605)
Submitted: October 1, 2003 Decided: February 4, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. Benjamin Guile, III, Decatur, Georgia, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant
Director, Michele Y. F. Sarko, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Gezachew Dessalegne Senegbe, 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 Senegbe’s
applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the
petition for review.
Senegbe challenges the immigration judge’s finding that
he failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution.
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 immigration judge’s conclusion that Senegbe failed to
establish his eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a)
(2003); 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 that Senegbe seeks. Accordingly, we deny
Senegbe’s petition for review and deny Senegbe’s motion to reopen
and remand. 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 -