Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    Medhana v. Ashcroft, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a 3-page unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying asylum and withholding of removal to Aden Mekonnen Medhana, a citizen of Ethiopia. The Court upheld the BIA's decision, finding that the immigration judge's ruling that Medhana did not have a well-founded fear of persecution in Ethiopia due to changed country conditions was supported by substantial evidence. Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum, the Court also upheld the denial of withholding of removal. The Court dispensed with oral arguments in the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Medhana v. Ashcroft, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    This document is a 3-page unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying asylum and withholding of removal to Aden Mekonnen Medhana, a citizen of Ethiopia. The Court upheld the BIA's decision, finding that the immigration judge's ruling that Medhana did not have a well-founded fear of persecution in Ethiopia due to changed country conditions was supported by substantial evidence. Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum, the Court also upheld the denial of withholding of removal. The Court dispensed with oral arguments in the case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-11-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-1882

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a 3-page unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying asylum and withholding of removal to Aden Mekonnen Medhana, a citizen of Ethiopia. The Court upheld the BIA's decision, finding that the immigration judge's ruling that Medhana did not have a well-founded fear of persecution in Ethiopia due to changed country conditions was supported by substantial evidence. Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum, the Court also upheld the denial of withholding of removal. The Court dispensed with oral arguments in the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    4 views3 pages

    Medhana v. Ashcroft, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a 3-page unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying asylum and withholding of removal to Aden Mekonnen Medhana, a citizen of Ethiopia. The Court upheld the BIA's decision, finding that the immigration judge's ruling that Medhana did not have a well-founded fear of persecution in Ethiopia due to changed country conditions was supported by substantial evidence. Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum, the Court also upheld the denial of withholding of removal. The Court dispensed with oral arguments in the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-1882

    ADEN MEKONNEN MEDHANA,


    Petitioner,
    versus
    JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
    Respondent.

    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration


    Appeals. (A77-340-647)

    Submitted:

    November 8, 2004

    Decided:

    November 19, 2004

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Samuel N. Omwenga, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.


    Peter D.
    Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Senior
    Litigation Counsel, Brenda M. OMalley, 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:
    Aden Mekonnen Medhana, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
    seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
    (Board)

    affirming

    the

    immigration

    judges

    denial

    of

    asylum,

    withholding of deportation, and protection under the Convention


    Against Torture.* The immigration judge concluded that, because of
    changed conditions in Ethiopia, Medhana did not have a well-founded
    fear

    of

    persecution

    persecution.

    or

    entitlement

    to

    asylum

    based

    on

    past

    See 8 C.F.R. 1208.13(b) (2004); Gonahasa v. INS,

    181 F.3d 538, 541-42 (4th Cir. 1999).

    We have reviewed the

    administrative record and the immigration judges decision and find


    that the ruling of the immigration judge, affirmed by the Board, is
    supported by substantial evidence.

    See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502

    U.S. 478, 481 (1992).


    In

    addition,

    we

    uphold

    the

    application for withholding of removal.

    denial

    of

    Medhanas

    Because the burden of

    proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even


    though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who
    is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding
    of removal under [8 U.S.C.] 1231(b)(3). Camara v. Ashcroft, 378
    F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004).

    Medhana asserts no arguments regarding the Convention Against


    Torture in this Court.
    - 2 -

    Accordingly,

    we

    deny

    the

    petition

    for

    review.

    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

    - 3 -

    You might also like