Chukwuemeke Akwara v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A076-835-247 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998898993].. [10-2209, 11-1756]

Appeal: 10-2209

Doc: 49

Filed: 07/20/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2209

CHUKWUEMEKE CHIKO AKWARA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
Homeland Security,

Attorney

General

and

Department

of

Department

of

Respondent.

No. 11-1756

CHUKWUEMEKE CHIKO AKWARA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER,
Homeland Security,

JR.,

Attorney

General,

Respondent.

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

March 13, 2012

Decided:

July 20, 2012

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Appeal: 10-2209

Doc: 49

Filed: 07/20/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cynthia Groomes Katz, LAW OFFICES OF CYNTHIA A. GROOMES, P.C.,
Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant
Attorney General, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Juria L. Jones, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 10-2209

Doc: 49

Filed: 07/20/2012

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
In
Chukwuemeke

these
Chiko

consolidated

Akwara,

a

petitions

native

and

for

review,

of

Nigeria,

citizen

petitions for review of two separate orders of the Board of
Immigration

Appeals

(“Board”).

In

No.

10-2209,

the

Board

dismissed Akwara’s appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of
his

motion

to

reopen,

and

in

No.

11-1756,

the

Board

denied

Akwara’s motions to reconsider, to remand, for termination, and
for administrative closure.
Because

Akwara

fails

to

raise

any

arguments

that

meaningfully challenge the propriety of the Board’s dismissal of
his

appeal

from

the

denial

of

his

motion

to

reopen

in

the

argument section of his brief, we find that he has failed to
preserve any issues for review in No. 10-2209.
P.

28(a)(9)(A)

(“[T]he

argument

.

.

.

See Fed. R. App.

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.”); 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

triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal.”).

claim

Accordingly,

we deny the petition for review in No. 10-2209 for the reasons
stated by the Board.

See In re: Akwara (B.I.A. Sept. 27, 2010).

3

Appeal: 10-2209

Doc: 49

Filed: 07/20/2012

Turning

to

No.

Pg: 4 of 4

11-1756,

we

have

reviewed

the

administrative record and the Board’s order and find that the
Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Akwara’s motions.
We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated
by the Board.

See In re: Akwara (B.I.A. June 23, 2011).

Accordingly, we deny both petitions 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.

PETITIONS DENIED

4