Andy Kum v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1018
ANDY CARL KUM,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: December 21, 2021 Decided: December 22, 2021
Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Payne, PAYNE & ASSOCIATES, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Brian B.
Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anthony D. Nicastro, Assistant Director,
Timothy Bo Stanton, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Andy Carl Kum, who claims to be a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying Kum’s third motion to
reopen his removal proceedings as time- and number-barred. Upon review, Kum’s brief
in this court fails to raise any arguments that respond to, or meaningfully challenge, the
Board’s rationale for denying his motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(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.”). It is well
established that “[f]ailure to comply with the specific dictates of [Rule 28] with respect to
a particular claim triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal.” Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we agree with the
Attorney General that Kum has waived appellate review of the Board’s order, see Suarez-
Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248-49 (4th Cir. 2013) (noting issues not raised in
appellate brief are waived), and thus we deny the petition for review.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2