TAYE v. SESSIONS, 18-1361. (2018)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20181004069
Visitors: 7
Filed: Oct. 04, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 04, 2018
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Mengistu Taye, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider its denial of his seventh motion to reopen. Because Taye fails to raise any arguments that challenge the propriety of the Board's denial of his motion to reconsider in his informal brief, we find that he has failed to preserve any issues for revi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Mengistu Taye, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider its denial of his seventh motion to reopen. Because Taye fails to raise any arguments that challenge the propriety of the Board's denial of his motion to reconsider in his informal brief, we find that he has failed to preserve any issues for revie..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Mengistu Taye, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider its denial of his seventh motion to reopen. Because Taye fails to raise any arguments that challenge the propriety of the Board's denial of his motion to reconsider in his informal brief, we find that he has failed to preserve any issues for review. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (directing appealing parties to present specific arguments in an informal brief and stating that this court's review on appeal is limited to the issues raised in the informal brief). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In re Taye (B.I.A. Mar. 6, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.
Source: Leagle
