Diallo v. Gonzales
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
SADIO DIALLO, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A97-622-486)
July 28, 2006
October 18, 2006
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick G. Tzeuton, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Donald E. Keener, Deputy Director, Bryan S. Beier, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Sadio Diallo, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
("Board") denying her motion to reconsider its previous order, which affirmed, without opinion, the immigration judge's denial of Diallo's requests for asylum and withholding of removal. Because
Diallo failed to raise any issues pertaining to the propriety of the Board's denial of her motion to reconsider in the argument section of her brief, we find that she has failed to preserve any issues for review. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) ("[T]he . . . appellant's contentions and the
argument . . . must contain
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 deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. 2005). See In re: Diallo, No. A97-622-486 (B.I.A. Oct. 11,
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.
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?