Opinion
No. 11-1240
11-30-2011
MARY NASOH, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
Theodore N. Nkwenti, LAW OFFICE OF THEODORE NKWENTI, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel, Susan K. Houser, 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UNPUBLISHED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 MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theodore N. Nkwenti, LAW OFFICE OF THEODORE NKWENTI, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel, Susan K. Houser, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mary Nasoh, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying her motions to reopen and reconsider. Because Nasoh fails to raise any arguments that meaningfully challenge the propriety of the Board's denial of her motions to reopen and 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: Nasoh (B.I.A. Feb. 17, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED