Zeleke Yonas-Aga v. Loretta Lynch
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A087-433-269. Copies to all parties and the agency. [999904256]. [15-1489]
Appeal: 15-1489
Doc: 34
Filed: 08/04/2016
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1489
ZELEKE YONAS-AGA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted:
July 26, 2016
Decided:
August 4, 2016
Before TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alan M. Parra, LAW OFFICE OF ALAN M. PARRA, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy,
Kiley Kane, Senior Litigation Counsel, Robert Michael Stalzer,
OFFICE
OF
IMMIGRATION
LITIGATION,
Washington,
D.C.,
for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-1489
Doc: 34
Filed: 08/04/2016
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Zeleke
Yonas-Aga,
a
native
and
citizen
of
Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals
(Board)
dismissing
his
appeal
from
the
Immigration
Judge’s denial of his requests for asylum and withholding of
removal.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to
any
of
the
agency’s
factual
findings,
see
8
U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports
the Board’s decision, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481
(1992).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons
stated
Apr. 8, 2015).
by
the
Board.
See
In
re
Yonas-Aga
(B.I.A.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before
this
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?