Cletus Fotibu v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A078-382-958. Copies to all parties and the agency. [1000130605]. [16-2176]

Appeal: 16-2176

Doc: 29

Filed: 08/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2176

CLETUS FRU FOTIBU,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted: June 29, 2017

Decided: August 3, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert I. Usumanu, ALBERT USUMANU LAW OFFICE, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for
Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Douglas E. Ginsburg,
Assistant Director, Jenny C. Lee, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2176

Doc: 29

Filed: 08/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Cletus Fru Fotibu, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of a
September 12, 2016 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his
motion to reopen. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the petition for review.
Before this court, Fotibu argues only that he was denied a fair merits hearing on
his applications for adjustment of status and cancellation of removal in violation of his
due process rights. However, Fotibu did not file a timely petition for review of the
Board’s March 18, 2016 order dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial
of that relief. Fotibu had 30 days from the date of that decision to file a timely petition
for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2012). This time frame is “jurisdictional in
nature and must be construed with strict fidelity to [its] terms.” Stone v. INS, 514 U.S.
386, 405 (1995). Moreover, the filing of a motion to reopen with the Board does not toll
the 30-day period for seeking review of underlying orders. Id. at 394. Thus, Fotibu’s
petition for review of the Board’s order of September 12, 2016, cannot be considered
timely as to the Board’s March 18, 2016 order.
Fotibu fails to raise any issues relevant to the Board’s September 12, 2016 order
denying his motion to reopen.

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 parts of the
record on which the appellant relies.” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). Furthermore, the
“[f]ailure to comply with the specific dictates of [Rule 28] with respect to a particular
claim triggers abandonment of that claim.” Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231,
2

Appeal: 16-2176

Doc: 29

Filed: 08/03/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999); see also Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir.
2004) (failure to challenge denial of relief under Convention Against Torture results in
abandonment of issue on review).
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED

3