Modesto Velasquez-Sanchez v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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

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UNPUBLISHED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Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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