UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1587
SALIM HAKIMI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 16, 2009 Decided: January 12, 2010
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dean E. Wanderer, DEAN E. WANDERER & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Yamileth G.
HandUber, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Salim Hakimi, a native and citizen of Afghanistan,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s decision finding he was not eligible for relief from
removability under Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”)
§ 212(c) because his aggravated felony conviction did not have a
statutory counterpart under INA § 212(a) and because he was not
eligible for § 212(c) relief because his aggravated felony
conviction occurred after April 24, 1996, citing 8 C.F.R.
§ 1212.3(f)(4) (2009). We deny the petition for review.
The Board cited two grounds for finding Hakimi was not
eligible for INA § 212(c) relief. On appeal to this court,
Hakimi, in his opening brief, only addresses one of the two
grounds. In A Helping Hand, LLC v. Baltimore County, MD, 515
F.3d 356, 369 (4th Cir. 2008), the court stated that “‘[i]t is a
well settled rule that contentions not raised in the argument
section of the opening brief are abandoned.’” (quoting United
States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004)). In
Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir. 2001), the court
noted that specific adverse findings made by the Board which are
not addressed by the Petitioner on appeal are abandoned. The
court found that “[b]ecause [Petitioner’s] opening brief fails
to raise a challenge to the Board’s conclusion that
2
[Petitioner’s] 1989 conviction for assault with a dangerous
weapon qualifies as a crime of moral turpitude, he has abandoned
it.” Id. at 326. The court noted that on that basis alone, it
affirmed the Board’s decision that the Petitioner was removable.
Furthermore, the court does not normally consider arguments
raised for the first time in a reply brief. See SEC v. Pirate
Investor, 580 F.3d 233, 255 n.23 (4th Cir. 2009).
Because Hakimi did not address the Board’s alternate
finding that he was not eligible for INA § 212(c) relief under 8
C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(4), 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
*
We note Hakimi does not challenge the finding that his
predicate conviction was an aggravated felony.
3