Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Aynan v. Ashcroft, 04-1830 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1830 Visitors: 10
Filed: Nov. 29, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1830 MOUKTAR ABDULLAHI AYNAN, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A78-346-741) Submitted: November 15, 2004 Decided: November 29, 2004 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mouktar Abdullahi Aynan, Petitioner Pro Se. George William Maugans, III, Special A
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1830 MOUKTAR ABDULLAHI AYNAN, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A78-346-741) Submitted: November 15, 2004 Decided: November 29, 2004 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mouktar Abdullahi Aynan, Petitioner Pro Se. George William Maugans, III, Special Assistant United States Attorney, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Baltimore, Maryland; Carol Federighi, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Wanda Evans, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mouktar Abdullahi Aynan, a native of Somalia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s order granting withholding of removal, but denying asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We find the immigration judge’s decision denying Aynan asylum as a matter of discretion was not manifestly contrary to law or an abuse of discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2000). 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 - 2 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer