Joong Cho v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A096-260-374, A096-260-375, A096-260-377. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998594103].. [10-2323]

Appeal: 10-2323

Document: 19

Date Filed: 05/20/2011

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2323

JOONG H. CHO; KYOUNG S. KIM; KYU D. CHO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

May 2, 2011

Decided:

May 20, 2011

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John D. Shin, Mark R. Millstein, Falls Church, Virginia, for
Petitioners.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, John S.
Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Michael C. Heyse, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-2323

Document: 19

Date Filed: 05/20/2011

Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Joong H. Cho, Kyoung S. Kim and Kyu D. Cho are natives
and citizens of South Korea.
of

the

Board

of

Immigration

They petition for review an order
Appeals

(“Board”)

motions to reopen and to reconsider.

denying

their

Because we conclude the

Petitioners have abandoned any challenge to the Board’s order,
we dismiss the petition for review.
The Petitioners did not file a timely petition for
review from the April 2, 2010 order dismissing the appeal from
the

immigration

judge’s

decision.

Their

brief,

however,

is

almost entirely an attack on the Board’s dismissal order and the
immigration

judge’s

ruling.

This

jurisdiction to review that order.

court

does

not

have

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)

(2006) (stating that the petition for review must be filed no
later than thirty days after the date of the final order of
removal).

It is well-settled that the subsequent filing with

the Board of a motion to reconsider does not toll the time for
filing a petition for review in the Court of Appeals.

See

Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394, 405-06 (1995).
The denial of a motion to reconsider is reviewed for
abuse of discretion.

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2010); Narine v.

Holder, 559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir. 2009); Jean v. Gonzales, 435
F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006).

This court also reviews the

denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion.
2

8 C.F.R.

Appeal: 10-2323

§

Document: 19

1003.2(a);

INS

Date Filed: 05/20/2011

v.

Doherty,

502

Page: 3 of 4

U.S.

314,

323-24

(1992);

Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir. 2006).

Under

Rule 28(a)(9)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
“the argument [section of the brief] . . . must contain . . .
appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations
to

the

authorities

and

appellant relies[.]”

parts

of

the

record

on

which

the

Furthermore, the “[f]ailure to comply with

the specific dictates of [Rule 28] with respect to a particular
claim triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal.”

Edwards v.

City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999); see
also Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004)
(failure to challenge the denial of relief under the CAT results
in

abandonment

Petitioners
reopening

of

fail

and

that
to

challenge).

challenge

reconsideration.

the

In

their

Board’s

Specifically,

brief,

order
the

the

denying

Petitioners

fail to assert that the Board erred finding that on appeal they
did not raise a meaningful challenge to the immigration judge’s
decision.

Similarly,

the

Petitioners

fail

to

challenge

the

Board’s findings that reopening was not warranted and that their
“new” evidence was previously available or cumulative.
Because the Petitioners have abandoned any challenge
to the Board’s order denying their motions to reconsider and
reopen and this court does not have jurisdiction to review the
Board’s order dismissing the appeal from the immigration judge’s
3

Appeal: 10-2323

Document: 19

Date Filed: 05/20/2011

Page: 4 of 4

decision, we dismiss the petition for review.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

the

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED

4