Demissie v. Ashcroft , 89 F. App'x 394 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1574
NEGUSSU DEMISSIE; KIRUBEL NEGUSSU,
Petitioners,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (A76-419-153; A76-419-154)
Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: March 9, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Hutchins, IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE APPELLATE CENTER, LLC,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Colette J.
Winston, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Petitioners Negussu Demissie (“Demissie”) and Kirubel
Negussu (“Negussu”), natives and citizens of Ethiopia, petition for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”)
dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s order denying
their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Demissie
is the primary applicant for asylum; the claims of his son,
Negussu, are derivative of his application. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(3) (2000); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21(a) (2003).
Rather than challenging the merits of the Board’s
decision on appeal, the Petitioners contend that the Board
erroneously failed to address one of their issues, testimony, and
much documentation of record, in violation of their due process
rights. We have reviewed this challenge and find it to be without
merit. As we have previously stated, the “Board need not . . .
‘write an exegesis on every contention. What is required is merely
that it consider the issues raised and announce its decision in
terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it
has heard and thought and not merely reacted.’” Casalena v. INS,
984 F.2d 105, 107 (4th Cir. 1993) (citing Becerra-Jiminez v. INS,
829 F.2d 996, 1000 (10th Cir. 1987)). We find the Board’s opinion
to be more than adequate to satisfy due process.
We therefore deny the petition for review. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -