UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2399
ANDREW MIIRO,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A74-642-948)
Submitted: August 30, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fatai A. Suleman, AMOROW & KUM, P.A., Takoma Park, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carl H.
McIntyre, Jr., Senior Litigation Counsel, John L. Davis, OFFICE OF
IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Andrew Miiro, a native and citizen of Uganda, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications
for asylum, withholding of deportation, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture.
Miiro first disputes the IJ’s negative credibility
finding, asserting that he established his eligibility for asylum.
Upon our review of the administrative record, we find that
substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Miiro failed
to establish eligibility for the relief sought. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1105a(a)(4) (1994);* Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir.
1989). Miiro thus cannot meet the higher standard for withholding
of deportation. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430
(1987).
Miiro also contends that the Board violated his right to
Due Process in declining to grant his motion to submit new evidence
on country conditions. We find this contention to be without
merit. See Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 (4th Cir. 2002).
*
We note that 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) was repealed by the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(IIRIRA) effective April 1, 1997. Because this case was in
transition at the time the IIRIRA was passed, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1105a(a)(4) is still applicable under the terms of the
transitional rules contained in § 309(c) of the IIRIRA.
- 2 -
Accordingly, we 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
- 3 -