Rigoberto Osorio-Sanchez v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 445 F. App'x 708 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1003
RIGOBERTO OSORIO-SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: August 19, 2011 Decided: September 2, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and DAVIS, Circuit
Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc Seguinót, SEGUINÓT & ASSOCIATES, PC, Dunn Loring, Virginia,
for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Carl H.
McIntyre, Assistant Director, Justin R. Markel, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rigoberto Osorio-Sanchez, a native and citizen of
Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen
immigration proceedings. This court reviews the denial of a
motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a)
(2011); see INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Mosere
v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S.
Ct. 137 (2009). We will reverse a denial of a motion to reopen
“only if it is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”
Mosere, 552 F.3d at 400 (internal quotation marks omitted).
In his appellate brief, Osorio-Sanchez presents no
argument relevant to whether the Board abused its discretion in
denying his motion to reopen. Therefore, we conclude that this
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). Accordingly, we deny the
petition for review. See In re: Osorio-Sanchez (B.I.A. Dec. 22,
2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
3