UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2146
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATEL; BHAVANABEN B. PATEL,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
(8:05-cv-01304-PJM)
Submitted: March 12, 2008 Decided: March 25, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
R. Scott Oswald, Nicholas W. Woodfield, EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, PC,
Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Tarra DeShields-Minnis, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Vijaykumar A. Patel and his wife, Bhavanaben B. Patel,
natives and citizens of India, appeal the district court’s order
denying their motion for reconsideration of its dismissal of their
declaratory judgment action. In their action, the Patels sought to
challenge the regulation set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 1245.10(j) (2007)
as ultra vires. Because the Patels failed to raise any issues
pertaining to the propriety of the district court’s finding that it
lacked jurisdiction over their challenges to the regulation, we
find that they 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 affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. See Patel v. Chertoff, No. 8:05-cv-01304-
PJM (D. Md. Aug. 31, 2006). 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.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -