Opinion
No. 13-1003
09-04-2013
TIBEBU HAILU BEYENE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
James A. Roberts, LAW OFFICE OF JAMES A. ROBERTS, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Heba Tellawi, Brianne Whelan Cohen, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Before SHEDD and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Roberts, LAW OFFICE OF JAMES A. ROBERTS, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Heba Tellawi, Brianne Whelan Cohen, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Tibebu Hailu Beyene, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's decision denying his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the various documentary exhibits relevant to country conditions in Ethiopia, the transcript of Beyene's merits hearing, and Beyene's supporting affidavit and evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006), and that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Beyene (B.I.A. Dec. 12, 2012). 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