UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2379
MODESTO VELASQUEZ-SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 30, 2016 Decided: July 22, 2016
Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anna Aita, LAW OFFICES OF ANNA AITA, Glen Burnie, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director,
Tiffany L. Walters, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Modesto Velasquez-Sanchez, a native and citizen of
Guatemala, petitions for review of an October 8, 2015, order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to
reconsider its decision of July 29, 2015, declining to reopen
his immigration proceedings. We dismiss the petition for
review.
On appeal, Velasquez-Sanchez challenges the agency’s denial
of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). However,
Velasquez-Sanchez did not file a timely petition for review of
the Board’s May 5, 2015, order affirming the denial of that
relief. Velasquez-Sanchez had thirty days from the date of that
decision to file a timely petition for review. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(1) (2012). This time frame is “jurisdictional in
nature and must be construed with strict fidelity to [its]
terms.” Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995). Moreover, the
filing of a motion to reconsider or reopen with the Board does
not toll the thirty-day period for seeking review of underlying
orders. Id. at 394. Thus, Velasquez-Sanchez’s petition for
review of the instant Board order of October 8, 2015, cannot be
considered timely as to the Board’s May 5, 2015, order.
Velasquez-Sanchez fails to raise any issues relevant to the
Board’s October 8, 2015, order denying his motion to reconsider.
2
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)(8)(A). 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) (failure to challenge the denial of
CAT relief results in abandonment of challenge on appeal).
Accordingly, we dismiss 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 DISMISSED
3