Filed: Jul. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2201 TOMAS MULUGHETA MAHARI, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 17, 2015 Decided: July 9, 2015 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hudaidah Bhimdi Ahmed, FAYAD LAW P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2201 TOMAS MULUGHETA MAHARI, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 17, 2015 Decided: July 9, 2015 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hudaidah Bhimdi Ahmed, FAYAD LAW P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2201
TOMAS MULUGHETA MAHARI,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 17, 2015 Decided: July 9, 2015
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hudaidah Bhimdi Ahmed, FAYAD LAW P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
Leslie McKay, Assistant Director, Sara J. Bayram, OFFICE OF
IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tomas Mulugheta Mahari, a native of Saudi Arabia and a citizen
of Eritrea, 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 and
withholding of removal. We have thoroughly reviewed the
administrative record and Mahari’s contentions on appeal, and
conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision.
See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). We
accordingly deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by
the Board. See In re: Mahari (B.I.A. Oct. 3, 2014). We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2