Dodaj v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service , 32 F. App'x 694 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 01-2126
    SOKOL DODAJ, a/k/a Artur Koci,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION      SERVICE;
    JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
    Respondents.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals. (A78-151-792)
    Submitted:   March 20, 2002                 Decided:   April 19, 2002
    Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    John William O’Leary, JOHN O’LEARY & ASSOCIATES, Washington, D.C.,
    for Petitioner.    Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney
    General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Carl H. McIntyre,
    Jr., Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
    JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Sokal Dodaj, a native and citizen of Albania, petitions for
    review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
    denying relief from removal.        The Board’s determination that Dodaj
    is not eligible for asylum must be upheld unless that determination
    is “manifestly contrary to law.”          
    8 U.S.C.A. § 1252
    (b)(4)(C) (West
    1999).
    We have reviewed the administrative record and find no error
    in     the   Board’s   conclusion    that    Dodaj    failed    to   establish
    eligibility as a refugee in order to qualify for relief from
    removal. 
    8 U.S.C.A. § 1101
    (a)(42)(A) (West 1999); M.A. v. INS, 
    899 F.2d 304
    , 307 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc).               In addition, Dodaj’s
    claim that gaps in the transcript require remand was not raised
    before the Board and has thus been waived. Gandarillas-Zambrana v.
    INS, 
    44 F.3d 1251
    , 1255 (4th Cir. 1995); Farrokhi v. INS, 
    900 F.2d 697
    , 700-01 (4th Cir. 1990).
    We accordingly affirm the Board’s order.              We dispense with
    oral    argument   because   the    facts    and     legal   contentions   are
    adequately presented in the material before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-2126

Citation Numbers: 32 F. App'x 694

Judges: Gregory, Per Curiam, Traxler, Widener

Filed Date: 4/19/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023