Tsedeke Mekonnen v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A059-958-978. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999807750]. [15-1400]

Appeal: 15-1400

Doc: 40

Filed: 04/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1400

TSEDEKE TESHONE MEKONNEN, a/k/a Tsedeke Teshone Mekonen,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

April 19, 2016

Before WILKINSON and
Senior Circuit Judge.

KEENAN,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

April 29, 2016

and

HAMILTON,

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alan M. Parra, LAW OFFICES OF ALAN M. PARRA, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Jesse M. Bless, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Lance L. Jolley, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1400

Doc: 40

Filed: 04/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Tsedeke Teshone Mekonnen, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals

dismissing

his

appeal

from

the

immigration

judge’s

denial of his requests for asylum and withholding of removal. *
We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript
of Mekonnen’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence.
conclude

that

the

record

evidence

does

not

compel

a

We

ruling

contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8
U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(4)(B)

(2012),

and

supports the Board’s decision.

that

substantial

evidence

See INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502

U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
Accordingly,

we

deny

the

reasons stated by the Board.
17, 2015).
legal
before

for

review

for

the

See In re Mekonnen (B.I.A. Mar.

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

*

Mekonnen does not challenge the denial of relief under the
Convention Against Torture.
Accordingly, review of that issue
is waived. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th
Cir. 2004).

2