Afia Noman-Aslam v. Michael Mukasey

Filing 920090105

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1066

AFIA NOMAN-ASLAM, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

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

Submitted:

October 21, 2008

Decided:

January 5, 2009

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anser Ahmad, AHMAD LAW OFFICES, P.C., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Eric W. Marsteller, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Afia Noman-Aslam, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying her motion to reconsider its prior order, which denied Noman-Aslam's motion to reopen removal

proceedings. This court reviews the Board's denial of a motion to reconsider discretion. with extreme deference and only for abuse of

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2008); Jean v. Gonzales, 435

F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999). The Board's broad discretion will be reversed

only if its decision "lacked a rational explanation, departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis." Jean, 435 F.3d at 483 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Noman-Aslam presents no argument relevant to whether the Board abused its discretion we in denying the her issue motion has for been

reconsideration. abandoned on appeal.

Therefore,

find

Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A); United States

v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004) ("It is a well settled rule that contentions not raised in the argument section of the opening brief are abandoned."); Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir. 2001) (stating failure to raise an issue in an opening brief results in abandonment of that issue). 2

To

the

extent

that

Noman-Aslam's

brief

can

be

construed to challenge the Board's alternative holding that the motion should be denied as a second and untimely motion to

reopen proceedings, the claim fails.

An alien may file one

motion to reopen within ninety days of the entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C) (2006); 8

C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2008).

We review the Board's denial of a 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); (1992); Nibagwire v.

motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24

Gonzales, 450 F.3d 153, 156 (4th Cir. 2006).

This court will

reverse a denial of a motion to reopen only if the denial is "arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law." 445 F.3d 741, 745 (4th Cir. 2006) Barry v. Gonzales, quotations and

(internal

citation omitted). In denying the motion on this alternative reasoning, the Board did not abuse its discretion. Construed as a motion

to reopen, the motion was plainly numerically barred; the Board denied the first motion to reopen less than three weeks before the motion was filed. Moreover, as the Board noted, the motion

was also time-barred, as it was filed almost five months after the Board affirmed the immigration judge's order of removal. For the foregoing reasons, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. Aslam (B.I.A. Nov. 30, 2007). 3 See In re: Noman-

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

4