UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1024
AMAH FRANI EKUE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-905-448)
Submitted: June 16, 2006 Decided: July 5, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ana T. Jacobs, ANA T. JACOBS & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Washington, D.C.,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Jason S. Patil, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Amah Frani Ekue, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
denying his motion to reconsider a prior order affirming the
immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture. The Board denied the motion on the ground that it failed
to “specify[] the errors of fact or law in the prior Board
decision,” as required by the controlling regulation, 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(b)(1) (2006). However, on appeal, Ekue seeks to challenge
only the immigration judge’s original order denying relief, as
affirmed by the Board.
Ekue may not contest in this appeal the Board’s order
affirming the decision of the immigration judge, as he did not file
a timely petition for review from that order. A petitioner has
thirty days to file a petition for review. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(1) (2000). This time period is “jurisdictional in nature
and must be construed with strict fidelity to [its] terms.” Stone
v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995). The filing of a motion to
reconsider does not toll the thirty-day period for seeking review
of the underlying order. Id. at 394. Accordingly, because Ekue
did not file a petition for review within thirty days of the
Board’s order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of relief,
- 2 -
this court’s review is limited to the Board’s denial of the motion
to reconsider, from which a timely petition for review was filed.
As Ekue makes no argument regarding that order, we
conclude that he has abandoned all claims that could properly be
raised in the appeal before us. See Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318,
326 (4th Cir. 2001) (holding failure to challenge denial of
withholding of removal and relief under Convention Against Torture
in opening brief constitutes abandonment of those claims);
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999)
(holding failure to raise specific issue in opening brief
constitutes abandonment of that issue under Fed. R. App. P.
28(a)(9)(A), requiring that argument section of opening brief
contain contentions, reasoning, and authority). 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -