Sadio Diallo v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 4th Cir. 1999 “Failure to comply with the…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2252
SADIO DIALLO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-622-486)
Submitted: July 28, 2006 Decided: October 18, 2006
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick G. Tzeuton, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Donald E. Keener,
Deputy Director, Bryan S. Beier, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Sadio Diallo, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) denying her motion to reconsider its previous order,
which affirmed, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of
Diallo’s requests for asylum and withholding of removal. Because
Diallo failed to raise any issues pertaining to 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: Diallo, No. A97-622-486 (B.I.A. Oct. 11,
2005). 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

-- 2 of 2 --