Salim Hakimi v. Eric Holder, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
SALIM HAKIMI, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
December 16, 2009
January 12, 2010
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dean E. Wanderer, DEAN E. WANDERER & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Yamileth G. HandUber, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Salim Hakimi, a native and citizen of Afghanistan,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge's decision finding he was not eligible for relief from removability under Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA")
§ 212(c) because his aggravated felony conviction did not have a statutory counterpart under INA § 212(a) and because he was not eligible conviction for § 212(c) relief because 24, his 1996, aggravated citing 8 felony C.F.R.
§ 1212.3(f)(4) (2009).
We deny the petition for review.
The Board cited two grounds for finding Hakimi was not eligible for INA § 212(c) relief. On appeal to this court,
Hakimi, in his opening brief, only addresses one of the two grounds. In A Helping Hand, LLC v. Baltimore County, MD, 515
F.3d 356, 369 (4th Cir. 2008), the court stated that "`[i]t is a well settled rule that contentions not raised in the argument section of the opening brief are abandoned.'" (quoting United States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004)). In
Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir. 2001), the court noted that specific adverse findings made by the Board which are not addressed by the Petitioner on appeal are abandoned. The
court found that "[b]ecause [Petitioner's] opening brief fails to raise a challenge to the 2 Board's conclusion that
weapon qualifies as a crime of moral turpitude, he has abandoned it." Id. at 326. The court noted that on that basis alone, it
affirmed the Board's decision that the Petitioner was removable. Furthermore, the court does not normally consider arguments
raised for the first time in a reply brief.
See SEC v. Pirate
Investor, 580 F.3d 233, 255 n.23 (4th Cir. 2009). Because Hakimi did not address the Board's alternate finding that he was not eligible for INA § 212(c) relief under 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(4), we deny the petition for review. * dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
We note Hakimi does not challenge the finding that his predicate conviction was an aggravated felony.
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?