Sokol Dodaj, a/k/a Artur Koci v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 307 4th Cir. 1990 en banc . In addition, Dodaj’s claim that gaps…

01-2126Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 19, 2002

Full text

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.