Muhammad Doza v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 4th Cir. 1989 . Doza thus cannot meet the higher standard for…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1157
MUHAMMAD DOZA; ROKEYA KHANAM; MOHAMMED
SHAMSUDDOHA; MOHAMMED SADRULULA; MOSAMMAT
JABUNNESA; MOHAMMED MOHIUDDIN,
Petitioners,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A73-189-484; A73-189-483; A73-189-481; A73-189-482;
A73-189-480; A73-189-479)
Submitted: March 31, 2004 Decided: May 19, 2004
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph J. Rose, LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH J. ROSE, New York, New York,
for Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
Linda S. Wernery, Senior Litigation Counsel, William C. Peachey,
OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

1Also listed as Petitioners dependent on Doza’s application
for relief are Doza’s wife, Rokeya Khanam, and four sons, Mohammed
Shamsuddoha, Mohammed Sadrulula, Mosammat Jabunnesa, and Mohammed
Mohiuddin.
2We note that 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) was repealed by the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(IIRIRA) effective April 1, 1997. Because this case was in
transition at the time the IIRIRA was passed, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1105a(a)(4) is still applicable under the terms of the
transitional rules contained in § 309(c) of the IIRIRA.
PER CURIAM:
Muhammad Doza, 1 a native and citizen of Bangladesh,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ)
denial of asylum and withholding of removal. Doza disputes the
IJ’s negative credibility finding and asserts that he established
his eligibility for asylum.
Upon our review of the administrative record, we find
that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Doza
failed to establish eligibility for the relief sought. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1105a(a)(4) (1994); 2 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b) (2003); Figeroa v.
INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). Doza thus cannot meet the
higher standard for withholding of deportation. See INS v.
Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987).
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 --