Tibebu Beyene v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-1003 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1003 TIBEBU HAILU BEYENE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 20, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 supporting affidavit and evidence. evidence does not compel a hearing, and Beyene s We conclude that the record ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006), and decision. that substantial evidence supports the Board s 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. We dispense contentions with are See In re: Beyene (B.I.A. Dec. 12, 2012). oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this 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.