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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. .. [15-2379]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
June 30, 2016
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Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Guatemala, petitions for review of an October 8, 2015, order of
reconsider its decision of July 29, 2015, declining to reopen
On appeal, Velasquez-Sanchez challenges the agency’s denial
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Velasquez-Sanchez did not file a timely petition for review of
the Board’s May 5, 2015, order affirming the denial of that
Velasquez-Sanchez had thirty days from the date of that
decision to file a timely petition for review.
See 8 U.S.C.
Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995).
filing of a motion to reconsider or reopen with the Board does
not toll the thirty-day period for seeking review of underlying
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.
Pg: 3 of 3
Under Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, “the
appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations
Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A).
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).
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?