UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1478
ABAYNESH DESTA ZEHERYE,
Petitioner,
v.
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Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
3