Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Alemayehu v. INS, 99-1488 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-1488 Visitors: 2
Filed: Sep. 23, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1488 SEMEGN ALEMAYEHU, Petitioner, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A75-334-656) Submitted: September 8, 1999 Decided: September 23, 1999 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney G
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1488 SEMEGN ALEMAYEHU, Petitioner, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A75-334-656) Submitted: September 8, 1999 Decided: September 23, 1999 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Karen Fletcher Torstenson, Assistant Director, Russell J.E. Verby, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Semegn Alemayehu seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“the Board”) decision and order affirming the immigration judge's denial of her application for asylum and with- holding of deportation. Our review of the record discloses that the Board properly affirmed the immigration judge’s decision and that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See In re: Semegn Alemayehu, No. A75-334- 656 (B.I.A. Mar. 25, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials 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