Mamadou Dembele v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 533 F. App'x 257 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2505
MAMADOU DEMBELE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 24, 2013 Decided: July 18, 2013
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kell Enow, ENOW & ASSOCIATES, Marietta, Georgia, for Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Jennifer L. Lightbody, Senior Litigation Counsel, Channah F.
Norman, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mamadou Dembele, a native and citizen of the Ivory
Coast, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to rescind and
reissue the order of removal. We deny the petition for review.
The Board found that insofar as Dembele sought to
reopen the proceedings, the motion was both untimely and number-
barred. The Board also found that Dembele did not indicate
which of the Board’s prior orders he wanted to have reissued.
An alien may file one motion to reopen within ninety
days of the entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2013).
This time limit does not apply if the basis for the motion is to
seek asylum or withholding of removal based on changed country
conditions, “if such evidence is material and was not available
and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous
proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (2006); see also 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) (2013).
This court reviews the denial of a motion to reopen
and to rescind for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a)
(2013); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Mosere v.
Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009); see also
Maghradze v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 150, 152 (2d Cir. 2006). The
2
Board’s “denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed with extreme
deference, given that motions to reopen are disfavored because
every delay works to the advantage of the deportable alien who
wishes merely to remain in the United States.” Sadhvani v.
Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 2009) (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted). The motion “shall state the
new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the
motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits or other
evidentiary material.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (2013). Such
motion “shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board that
evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available
and could not have been discovered or presented at the former
hearing.” Id.Under Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure, “the argument [section of the brief] . . . 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.” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9).
Furthermore, the “[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); see also
Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004)
3
(failure to challenge the denial of relief under the CAT results
in abandonment of that challenge). In Ogundipe v. Mukasey, 541
F.3d 257, 263 n.4 (4th Cir. 2008), we noted that it was
“longstanding Fourth Circuit precedent” not to consider an issue
that was forfeited because it was not discussed in the
Petitioner’s opening brief. Similarly, in Yousefi v. INS, 260
F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir. 2001), the court held that the
Petitioner waived his challenge to the finding that he was
deportable for having been convicted of a crime of moral
turpitude. The court further noted that the fact that the
Petitioner raised the issue in his reply brief does not remedy
the situation.
Dembele does not challenge the Board’s findings that
his motion was untimely and number-barred. Nor does Dembele
challenge the Board’s finding that he did not specify which of
the Board’s orders he wanted to have reissued. Thus, Dembele
has abandoned review of the Board’s order.
In any event, we conclude that the Board did not abuse
its discretion in finding Dembele’s motion was untimely and
number-barred. We further conclude that the Board did not abuse
its discretion in denying Dembele’s request to reissue an
unspecified decision.
4
Accordingly, 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
5