Modesto Velasquez-Sanchez v. Loretta Lynch


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A094-218-230 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999894472].. [15-2379]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-2379 Doc: 28 Filed: 07/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2379 MODESTO VELASQUEZ-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 30, 2016 Decided: July 22, 2016 Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anna Aita, LAW OFFICES OF ANNA AITA, Glen Burnie, Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director, Tiffany L. Walters, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-2379 Doc: 28 Filed: 07/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Modesto Velasquez-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an October 8, 2015, order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reconsider its decision of July 29, 2015, declining to reopen his immigration proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review. On appeal, Velasquez-Sanchez challenges the agency’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). and However, Velasquez-Sanchez did not file a timely petition for review of the Board’s May 5, 2015, order affirming the denial of that relief. Velasquez-Sanchez had thirty days from the date of that decision to file a timely petition for review. § 1252(b)(1) nature terms.” and (2012). must be This time construed frame with is strict See 8 U.S.C. “jurisdictional fidelity Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995). to in [its] Moreover, the filing of a motion to reconsider or reopen with the Board does not toll the thirty-day period for seeking review of underlying orders. Id. at 394. Thus, Velasquez-Sanchez’s petition for review of the instant Board order of October 8, 2015, cannot be considered timely as to the Board’s May 5, 2015, order. Velasquez-Sanchez fails to raise any issues relevant to the Board’s October 8, 2015, order denying his motion to reconsider. 2 Appeal: 15-2379 Doc: 28 Filed: 07/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 3 Under Rule 28 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 Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). 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 CAT relief results in abandonment of challenge on appeal). Accordingly, dispense with contentions are we oral dismiss argument adequately the petition because presented in for the the review. facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED 3

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?