Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Carol Fitzgerald v. Eric Holder, JR., 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Carol Fitzgerald's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of her motion to reconsider and reopen her case. The court found that Fitzgerald failed to raise any meaningful arguments in her brief challenging the BIA's denial. As a result, she failed to preserve any issues for appeal. The court also noted it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's refusal to sua sponte reopen proceedings. Therefore, the court denied the petition for the reasons stated by the BIA.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-06-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-1094

    Original Title

    Carol Fitzgerald v. Eric Holder, Jr., 4th Cir. (2012)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Carol Fitzgerald's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of her motion to reconsider and reopen her case. The court found that Fitzgerald failed to raise any meaningful arguments in her brief challenging the BIA's denial. As a result, she failed to preserve any issues for appeal. The court also noted it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's refusal to sua sponte reopen proceedings. Therefore, the court denied the petition for the reasons stated by the BIA.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views2 pages

    Carol Fitzgerald v. Eric Holder, JR., 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Carol Fitzgerald's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of her motion to reconsider and reopen her case. The court found that Fitzgerald failed to raise any meaningful arguments in her brief challenging the BIA's denial. As a result, she failed to preserve any issues for appeal. The court also noted it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's refusal to sua sponte reopen proceedings. Therefore, the court denied the petition for the reasons stated by the BIA.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-1094

    CAROL FITZGERALD,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
    Respondent.

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


    Appeals.

    Submitted:

    June 19, 2012

    Decided:

    June 25, 2012

    Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,


    Virginia, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
    Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Jennifer
    P. Levings, 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:
    Carol

    Fitzgerald,

    native

    and

    citizen

    of

    Nigeria,

    petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration


    Appeals
    reopen.

    (Board)

    denying

    her

    motion

    to

    reconsider

    and

    to

    Because Fitzgerald fails to raise any arguments that

    meaningfully challenge the propriety of the Boards denial of


    her motion 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 . . .


    appellants 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

    particular

    triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal.).

    claim

    Accordingly,

    we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the
    Board.
    dispense

    See

    In

    with

    re:
    oral

    Fitzgerald (B.I.A.

    Dec.

    argument

    the

    because

    28,

    2011). *

    facts

    and

    We
    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    PETITION DENIED
    *

    We lack jurisdiction to review the Boards refusal to


    exercise its authority to sua sponte reopen proceedings.
    See
    Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009).

    You might also like