Noman-Aslam v. Mukasey , 305 F. App'x 959 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                 UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-1066
    AFIA NOMAN-ASLAM,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals.
    Submitted:    October 21, 2008                Decided:   January 5, 2009
    Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit
    Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Anser Ahmad, AHMAD LAW OFFICES, P.C., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
    for Petitioner.   Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General,
    Carol Federighi, Eric W. Marsteller, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
    JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Afia Noman-Aslam, a native and citizen of Pakistan,
    petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reconsider its prior
    order,   which    denied       Noman-Aslam’s    motion      to     reopen    removal
    proceedings.
    This court reviews the Board’s denial of a motion to
    reconsider      with    extreme    deference        and    only     for    abuse    of
    discretion.      
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (a) (2008); Jean v. Gonzales, 
    435 F.3d 475
    , 481 (4th Cir. 2006); Stewart v. INS, 
    181 F.3d 587
    , 595
    (4th Cir. 1999).        The Board’s broad discretion will be reversed
    only if its decision “lacked a rational explanation, departed
    from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis.”
    Jean, 
    435 F.3d at 483
     (internal quotation marks and citations
    omitted).
    Noman-Aslam presents no argument relevant to whether
    the   Board    abused    its    discretion     in    denying      her     motion   for
    reconsideration.          Therefore,    we     find       the     issue    has     been
    abandoned on appeal.       Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A); United States
    v. Al-Hamdi, 
    356 F.3d 564
    , 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004) (“It is a
    well settled rule that contentions not raised in the argument
    section of the opening brief are abandoned.”); Yousefi v. INS,
    
    260 F.3d 318
    , 326 (4th Cir. 2001) (stating failure to raise an
    issue in an opening brief results in abandonment of that issue).
    2
    To   the     extent      that        Noman-Aslam’s       brief     can     be
    construed to challenge the Board’s alternative holding that the
    motion     should     be   denied    as    a       second    and   untimely     motion    to
    reopen proceedings, the claim fails.                          An alien may file one
    motion to reopen within ninety days of the entry of a final
    order    of    removal.      8   U.S.C.        § 1229a(c)(7)(A),         (C)    (2006); 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(2) (2008).               We review the Board’s denial of a
    motion to reopen for abuse of discretion.                       
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (a);
    INS   v.      Doherty,     
    502 U.S. 314
    ,       323-24    (1992);    Nibagwire       v.
    Gonzales, 
    450 F.3d 153
    , 156 (4th Cir. 2006).                            This court will
    reverse a denial of a motion to reopen only if the denial is
    “arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.”                        Barry v. Gonzales,
    
    445 F.3d 741
    ,   745    (4th    Cir.      2006)        (internal   quotations       and
    citation omitted).
    In denying the motion on this alternative reasoning,
    the Board did not abuse its discretion.                        Construed as a motion
    to reopen, the motion was plainly numerically barred; the Board
    denied the first motion to reopen less than three weeks before
    the motion was filed.            Moreover, as the Board noted, the motion
    was also time-barred, as it was filed almost five months after
    the Board affirmed the immigration judge’s order of removal.
    For the foregoing reasons, we deny the petition for
    review for the reasons stated by the Board.                         See In re: Noman-
    Aslam (B.I.A. Nov. 30, 2007).                      We dispense with oral argument
    3
    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
    in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    PETITION DENIED
    4