Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Mattete v. Gonzales, 05-1349 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-1349 Visitors: 20
Filed: Aug. 30, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1349 PATRICK MATTETE, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A96-451-506) Submitted: August 17, 2005 Decided: August 30, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick Mattete, Petitioner Pro Se. Carol Federighi, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, UNITED STATES DEPA
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1349 PATRICK MATTETE, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A96-451-506) Submitted: August 17, 2005 Decided: August 30, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick Mattete, Petitioner Pro Se. Carol Federighi, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Patrick Mattete, a native and citizen of Tanzania, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Mattete disputes the finding that he failed to meet his burden of proof to qualify for withholding of removal. We have reviewed the record and conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that Mattete failed to demonstrate eligibility for this relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b) (2005). We accordingly 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