Diallo v. Gonzales , 203 F. App'x 512 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-2252
    SADIO DIALLO,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals. (A97-622-486)
    Submitted:   July 28, 2006                 Decided:   October 18, 2006
    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Patrick G. Tzeuton, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner.
    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Donald E. Keener,
    Deputy Director, Bryan S. Beier, Senior Litigation Counsel,
    Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Sadio Diallo, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions
    for   review   of    an   order   of   the   Board   of   Immigration   Appeals
    (“Board”) denying her motion to reconsider its previous order,
    which affirmed, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of
    Diallo’s requests for asylum and withholding of removal.                Because
    Diallo failed to raise any issues pertaining to the propriety of
    the Board’s denial of her motion to reconsider in the argument
    section of her brief, we find that she has failed to preserve any
    issues for review.          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 for the reasons stated
    by the Board.       See In re: Diallo, No. A97-622-486 (B.I.A. Oct. 11,
    2005).   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
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-2252

Citation Numbers: 203 F. App'x 512

Judges: Wilkinson, Traxler, King

Filed Date: 10/18/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024