Khan v. Gonzales , 232 F. App'x 328 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2305
MEHDI KHAN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(A72-167-476)
Submitted: May 30, 2007 Decided: July 10, 2007
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard W. Chang, WASSERMAN, MANCINI & CHANG, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Mary
Jane Candaux, Senior Litigation Counsel, Anh-Thu P. Mai, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mehdi Khan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions
for review an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”)
denying his motion to reconsider and/or reopen. Insofar as Khan
challenges the Board’s prior orders, we lack jurisdiction because
Khan did not file a timely petition for review from those orders.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405
(1995). While Khan’s brief raises challenges to both of those
prior orders, he fails to raise any issue with respect to the
November 14, 2006, order, the only order from which his petition
for review is timely. Issues not briefed on appeal are deemed
abandoned. Pleasurecraft Marine Engine Co. v. Thermo Power Corp.,
272 F.3d 654, 657 (4th Cir. 2001); 11126 Baltimore Blvd. v. Prince
George’s County, Md., 58 F.3d 988, 993 n.7 (4th Cir. 1995) (relying
on Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(6) and holding that
issues not briefed or argued in federal appeal are deemed
abandoned). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
We note the Board did not abuse its discretion denying
Khan’s motion to reconsider or reopen. Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d
475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th
Cir. 1999).
We deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -