Chukwuemeke Akwara v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2209
CHUKWUEMEKE CHIKO AKWARA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General and Department of
Homeland Security,
Respondent.
No. 11-1756
CHUKWUEMEKE CHIKO AKWARA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Department of
Homeland Security,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 13, 2012 Decided: July 20, 2012
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cynthia Groomes Katz, LAW OFFICES OF CYNTHIA A. GROOMES, P.C.,
Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant
Attorney General, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Juria L. Jones, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated petitions for review,
Chukwuemeke Chiko Akwara, a native and citizen of Nigeria,
petitions for review of two separate orders of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”). In No. 10-2209, the Board
dismissed Akwara’s appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of
his motion to reopen, and in No. 11-1756, the Board denied
Akwara’s motions to reconsider, to remand, for termination, and
for administrative closure.
Because Akwara fails to raise any arguments that
meaningfully challenge the propriety of the Board’s dismissal of
his appeal from the denial of his motion to reopen in the
argument section of his brief, we find that he has failed to
preserve any issues for review in No. 10-2209. 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 in No. 10-2209 for the reasons
stated by the Board. See In re: Akwara (B.I.A. Sept. 27, 2010).
3
Turning to No. 11-1756, we have reviewed the
administrative record and the Board’s order and find that the
Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Akwara’s motions.
We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated
by the Board. See In re: Akwara (B.I.A. June 23, 2011).
Accordingly, we deny both petitions 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.
PETITIONS DENIED
4