Sarumi v. Gonzales

Filing 920070625

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1953

TOYIN SARUMI, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A70-306-499)

Submitted:

May 16, 2007

Decided:

June 25, 2007

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander N. Agiliga, LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER N. AGILIGA, Largo, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Gladys M. Steffens-Guzman, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Toyin Sarumi, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

("Board") dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's order denying his requests for adjustment of status and voluntary

departure and ordering his removal to Nigeria.

Because Sarumi

failed to raise any issues pertaining to the propriety of the denial of his requests for adjustment of status or voluntary departure in the argument section of his brief, we find that he has failed to preserve any issues for review. See Fed. R. App. P. . . . appellant's citations the to the

28(a)(9)(A) ("[T]he argument . . . must contain contentions authorities and and the reasons of for them, with on

parts

the

record

which

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 See In Re: Sarumi, No. A70-

for the reasons stated by the Board. 306-499 (B.I.A. Aug. 4, 2006).

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

- 2 -