Monyei v. Gonzales, No. 06-1718 (4th Cir. 2007)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1718 PATIENCE DOROTHY MONYEI, a/k/a Dorothy Monyei, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-305-161) Submitted: January 31, 2007 Decided: February 13, 2007 Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert A. Remes, CARLINER & REMES, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Brianne Whelan, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Patience Dorothy Monyei, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge s order denying relief from removal. and Immigration Judge erred in Monyei contends that the Board finding her ineligible for withholding of removal. To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that he faces a clear probability of persecution because of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)). Having conducted our review, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that Monyei failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. We accordingly 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 - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.