Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Busiku v. Gonzales, 04-2259 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-2259 Visitors: 15
Filed: May 16, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2259 EDWARD BUSIKU, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-221-369) Submitted: April 20, 2005 Decided: May 16, 2005 Before LUTTIG, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jason A. Dzubow, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David V
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2259 EDWARD BUSIKU, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-221-369) Submitted: April 20, 2005 Decided: May 16, 2005 Before LUTTIG, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jason A. Dzubow, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Margaret K. Taylor, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Edward Busiku, a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 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, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision to uphold the immigration judge’s denial of Busiku’s requests for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review on the reasoning of the Board. See In re: Busiku, No. A95-221-369 (B.I.A. Sept. 10, 2004). 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