Alexander Yuryevich Sozonov v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 1992 . Because the decision in this case is not…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1345
ALEXANDER YURYEVICH SOZONOV,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-470-758)
Submitted: November 5, 2004 Decided: December 10, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alberto Manuel Benitez, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
IMMIGRATION CLINIC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant
Director, Aviva L. Poczter, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 --

*Sozonov fails to challenge the Board’s denial of his
applications for withholding from removal and withholding under the
Convention Against Torture. Accordingly, he has abandoned any such
challenge.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Alexander Yuryevich Sozonov, a native and citizen of
Russia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“Board”) order affirming the immigration judge’s decision denying
asylum, withholding of removal and withholding under the Convention
Against Torture. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the
petition for review.
The decision to grant or deny asylum relief is conclusive
“unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.”
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2000). We have reviewed the Board’s
decision and the immigration judge’s decision and the
administrative record and find the record supports the conclusion
that Sozonov failed to establish eligibility for asylum on a
protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2004) (stating that
the burden of proof is on the alien to establish his eligibility
for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992).
Because the decision in this case is not manifestly contrary to
law, we cannot grant the relief Sozonov seeks. *
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --