Opinion
21-2079
06-22-2022
MOHAMED AMGED ALI ZOKAILAH, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General Respondent.
Nash Fayad, FAYAD LAW, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, A. Ashley Arthur, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: April 29, 2022
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
ON BRIEF:
Nash Fayad, FAYAD LAW, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Petitioner.
Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, A. Ashley Arthur, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HEYTENS, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Mohamed Amged Ali Zokailah, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) adopting and affirming the immigration judge's decision and dismissing his appeal. We conclude that we are without jurisdiction to review the agency's decision regarding whether Zokailah complied with the one-year time limit for filing an asylum application, or established changed or extraordinary circumstances justifying waiver of that time limit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (a)(3); Salgado-Sosa v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 451, 459 (4th Cir. 2018). We further conclude that Zokailah has waived review of the agency's denial of withholding of removal because he did not challenge the denial in the argument section of his opening brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248 (4th Cir. 2013) (noting that failure to comply with Rule 28 "triggers abandonment of that claim"). Lastly, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture. See Cabrera Vasquez v. Barr, 919 F.3d 218, 222 (4th Cir. 2019) (stating standard of review).
Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part 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 IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.