Mary Nasoh v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A087-378-320 Copies to all parties and the district court. [998732279]. [11-1240]

Appeal: 11-1240

Document: 26

Date Filed: 11/30/2011

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1240

MARY NASOH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

November 4, 2011

Decided:

November 30, 2011

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theodore N. Nkwenti, LAW OFFICE OF THEODORE NKWENTI, Silver
Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel, Susan K.
Houser,
Office
of
Immigration
Litigation,
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1240

Document: 26

Date Filed: 11/30/2011

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Mary

Nasoh,

a

native

and

citizen

of

Cameroon,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying her motions to reopen and reconsider.
Because Nasoh fails to raise any arguments that meaningfully
challenge the propriety of the Board’s denial of her motions to
reopen and reconsider in the argument section of her brief, we
find that she has failed to preserve any issues for review.

See

Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (“[T]he argument . . . 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

specific
claim

n.6

(4th

dictates

triggers

Cir.

of

1999)

[Rule

abandonment

(“Failure

28]
of

with

to

respect

that

claim

comply
to

a

on

with

the

particular
appeal.”).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons
stated by the Board.
We

dispense

with

See In re: Nasoh (B.I.A. Feb. 17, 2011).

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