Opinion
No. 12-1993
02-12-2013
HADAS ANDU KELATI, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
David R. Saffold, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID R. SAFFOLD, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Tiffany L. Walters, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David R. Saffold, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID R. SAFFOLD, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Tiffany L. Walters, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Hadas Andu Kelati, a native and citizen of Eritrea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her motion to reconsider. Because Kelati fails to raise any arguments that meaningfully challenge the propriety of the Board's denial of her motion to 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 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) ("Failure to comply with the specific dictates of [Rule 28] with respect to a particular claim triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal."). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Kelati (B.I.A. Jul. 16, 2012). 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 DENIED