Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Mehari v. INS, 97-1151 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-1151 Visitors: 14
Filed: Aug. 27, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1151 BAYUSH MEHARI, Petitioner, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A29-919-149) Submitted: August 5, 1997 Decided: August 27, 1997 Before HALL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard S. Bromberg, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger, Assist
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1151 BAYUSH MEHARI, Petitioner, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A29-919-149) Submitted: August 5, 1997 Decided: August 27, 1997 Before HALL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard S. Bromberg, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, William J. Howard, Senior Litigation Counsel, Madeline Henley, Office of Immigration Litigation, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Appellant Bayush Mehari seeks review of the Board of Immigra- tion Appeals' opinion and order dismissing her appeal and affirming as modified the immigration judge's decision denying her applica- tion for asylum and withholding of deportation. Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based on substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Mehari v. INS, No. A29-919-149 (B.I.A. Jan. 8, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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