Tamiru Yirbero v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A200-627-930. Copies to all parties and the agency. [999632690]. [15-1036]

Appeal: 15-1036

Doc: 20

Filed: 08/03/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1036

TAMIRU HAILEMARIAM YIRBERO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

July 1, 2015

Decided:

August 3, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David R. Saffold, SAFFOLD & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Washington, D.C.,
for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Matthew
Metsa Downer, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1036

Doc: 20

Filed: 08/03/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Tamiru
Ethiopia,

Hailemariam

petitions

Immigration

of

review

(“Board”)

judge’s

withholding
Against

for

Appeals

immigration

Yirbero,

Torture.

We

native

an

order

dismissing

denial

removal,

of

a

and

of

his

and
of

his

the

requests

the

thoroughly

reviewed

of

from

for

under

of

Board

appeal

protection

have

citizen

the

asylum,

Convention

the

record,

including the transcript of Yirbero’s merits hearing, his asylum
application, and all supporting evidence.

We conclude that the

record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the
administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
(2012),

and

decision.

that

substantial

we

deny

the

reasons stated by the Board.
10, 2014).

before

supports

the

Board’s

See INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

Accordingly,

legal

evidence

for

review

for

the

See In re: Yirbero (B.I.A. Dec.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

petition

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
PETITION DENIED

2