Weldesenbet v. Gonzales

Filing 920070104

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1483

THOMAS AYALEW WELDESENBET, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-263-107)

Submitted:

November 15, 2006

Decided:

January 4, 2007

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andres Cayetano Benach, MAGGIO & KATTAR, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Judith A. Hagley, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Thomas Ayalew Weldesenbet, a native and citizen of

Ethiopia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("Board") order denying his motion to remand and dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's order denying his applications for withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We deny the petition for review.

We review the Board's denial of a motion to remand for abuse of discretion. See Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 408 Whether

(4th Cir. 2005) (setting forth standard of review).

Weldesenbet's ineffective assistance of counsel claim rises to the level of a due process claim is reviewed de novo. 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). Figeroa v. INS,

We find the Board did not err in

determining whether Weldesenbet was prejudiced by counsel's alleged ineffective assistance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (2006); We further establish

Savino v. Murray, 82 F.3d 593, 598 (4th Cir. 1996). agree with the Board that Weldesenbet failed to

prejudice. In addition, we find the immigration judge used the proper analysis in determining whether Weldesenbet was entitled to withholding from removal and substantial evidence supports the finding that there was a fundamental change of circumstances. Accordingly, we deny the 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 -