Ilesanmi Odunwole Laroja v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 323 4th Cir. 2002

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1785
ILESANMI ODUNWOLE LAROJA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A76-588-504)
Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: July 8, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua A. Moses, JOSHUA MOSES & ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant
Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Audrey B. Hemesath, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Ilesanmi Odunwole Laroja, a native and citizen of Nigeria,
petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s
(IJ) denial of asylum and withholding of removal.
Laroja challenges the IJ’s negative credibility finding,
asserting that the IJ misunderstood his testimony, placed too much
weight on minor inconsistencies, and that the IJ’s findings were
contrary to the evidence in the record. We have thoroughly reviewed
the record in light of the IJ’s findings and conclude that Laroja’s
assertions are without merit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (2000);
Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 323 (4th Cir. 2002); Matter of S-A-,
Int. Dec. 3433 (BIA 2000); Matter of A-S-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1106
(BIA 1998).
Laroja also contends that the Board abused its discretion in
affirming the IJ’s findings without opinion and failed to properly
evaluate his appeal. As these claims are merely mentioned in
Laroja’s brief and are entirely undeveloped, we find that they have
been abandoned. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241
n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
We accordingly deny Laroja’s petition for review. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

-- 2 of 3 --

3
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --