Solomon-Tebika v. Michael Mukasey, No. 07-1526 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1526 YONAS SOLOMON-TEBIKA, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A200-038-049) Submitted: February 13, 2008 Decided: March 7, 2008 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Solomon Bekele, LAW OFFICES OF SOLOMON & ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Yamileth G. HandUber, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Yonas Solomon-Tebika, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) dismissing his appeal from the judge s order denying the motion to reconsider. immigration We deny the petition for review. Our dismissing the reconsider. jurisdiction appeal In is from his limited the brief, order to the denying Solomon-Tebika Board s the order motion challenges to the immigration judge s earlier order denying his applications for asylum, withholding from removal Convention Against Torture. these challenges administrative because remedies withholding under the This court lacks jurisdiction over Solomon-Tebika by decision to the Board. and failed to exhaust appealing immigration judge s the A court may review a final order of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the ยง 1252(d)(1) (West 2005). alien as of right. 8 U.S.C.A. When Congress has statutorily mandated exhaustion, that requirement must be enforced. Kurfees v. INS, 275 F.3d 332, 336 (4th Cir. 2001). Moreover, this court has held it lacks jurisdiction to consider an argument not made before the Board. Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Solomon-Tebika does not challenge the Board s order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge s order - 2 - denying the motion to reconsider in his brief, we will not review the order. It is a well settled rule that contentions not raised in the argument section of the opening brief are abandoned. United States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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 - 3 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.