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

UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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