Abaynesh Zeherye v. Eric Holder, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1478

ABAYNESH DESTA ZEHERYE,

Petitioner,

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted: November 15, 2011 Decided: November 17, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jason A. Dzubow, DZUBOW, SARAPU & PILCHER, PLLC, Washington,
D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General,
Thomas B. Fatouros, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ann M. Welhaf,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Abaynesh Desta Zeherye, a native and citizen of

Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion for

reconsideration. Because we conclude that Zeherye has abandoned

any challenge to the Board’s order, we dismiss the petition for

review.

Zeherye did not file a timely petition for review from

the September 15, 2010 order dismissing her appeal from the

immigration judge’s decision. Her brief, however, is almost

entirely an attack on the Board’s dismissal order and the

immigration judge’s ruling. This court does not have

jurisdiction to review that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)

(2006) (stating that the petition for review must be filed no

later than thirty days after the date of the final order of

removal). It is well-settled that the subsequent filing with

the Board of a motion to reconsider does not toll the time for

filing a petition for review in the Court of Appeals. See

Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394, 405-06 (1995).

The denial of a motion to reconsider is reviewed for

abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2011); Narine v.

Holder, 559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir. 2009); Jean v. Gonzales, 435

F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006). Under Rule 28 of the Federal

Rules of Appellate Procedure, “the argument [section of the

2
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.” 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

relief under the CAT results in abandonment of that challenge).

In her brief, Zeherye fails to raise a challenge to the Board’s

order that is the proper subject of this petition for review.

Because Zeherye has abandoned any challenge to the

Board’s order denying her motion to reconsider and this court

does not have jurisdiction to review the Board’s order

dismissing the appeal from the immigration judge’s decision, we

dismiss 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 DISMISSED