Singhe v. Gonzales , 158 F. App'x 506 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1420
RICHARD ALFRED SINGHE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-343-813)
Submitted: November 18, 2005 Decided: December 29, 2005
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick G. Tzeuton, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez
Wright, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil
Division, Joshua P. Jones, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Richard Alfred Singhe petitions for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to
reconsider an order affirming without opinion the immigration
judge’s denial of a motion to reopen. Singhe’s motion to
reconsider raised only the argument that the Board erred in
affirming without opinion, by a single Board member, the
immigration judge’s denial of the motion to reopen. On appeal,
Singhe seeks to challenge the immigration judge’s decision denying
the motion to reopen.
Singhe may not challenge in this appeal the immigration
judge’s order denying his motion to reopen, as affirmed by the
Board, as he did not file a timely petition for review from that
order. A petitioner has thirty days to file a petition for review.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000). This time period is
“jurisdictional in nature and must be construed with strict
fidelity to [its] terms.” Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995).
The filing of a motion to reconsider does not toll the thirty-day
period for seeking review of the underlying order. Id. at 394.
Accordingly, because Singhe did not file a petition for review
within thirty days of the Board’s order affirming the immigration
judge’s denial of the motion to reopen, this court’s review is
limited to the Board’s denial of the motion to reconsider. As
Singhe makes no argument regarding that disposition, we conclude
- 2 -
that he has abandoned all claims that could properly be raised in
the appeal before us. See Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th
Cir. 2001) (holding failure to challenge denial of withholding of
removal and relief under Convention Against Torture in opening
brief constitutes abandonment of those claims); Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding failure
to raise specific issue in opening brief constitutes abandonment of
that issue under Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A), requiring that
argument section of opening brief contain contentions, reasoning,
and authority).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument 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
- 3 -