KELATI v. HOLDER, 12-1993. (2013)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20130212061
Visitors: 28
Filed: Feb. 12, 2013
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2013
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Hadas Andu Kelati, a native and citizen of Eritrea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her motion to reconsider. Because Kelati fails to raise any arguments that meaningfully challenge the propriety of the Board's denial of her motion to reconsider in the argument section of her brief, we find that she has failed to preserve any issues for review. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Hadas Andu Kelati, a native and citizen of Eritrea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her motion to reconsider. Because Kelati fails to raise any arguments that meaningfully challenge the propriety of the Board's denial of her motion to reconsider in the argument section of her brief, we find that she has failed to preserve any issues for review. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)..
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hadas Andu Kelati, a native and citizen of Eritrea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her motion to reconsider. Because Kelati fails to raise any arguments that meaningfully challenge the propriety of the Board's denial of her motion to reconsider in the argument section of her brief, we find that she has failed to preserve any issues for review. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) ("[T]he argument . . . must contain . . . appellant's contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies."); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) ("Failure to comply with the specific dictates of [Rule 28] with respect to a particular claim triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal."). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Kelati (B.I.A. Jul. 16, 2012). 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
