Hadas Kelati v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 12-1993 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1993 HADAS ANDU KELATI, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: January 16, 2013 Decided: February 12, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David R. Saffold, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID R. SAFFOLD, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Tiffany L. Walters, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Hadas Andu Kelati, a native and citizen of Eritrea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her motion to reconsider. Because Kelati fails to raise any arguments that meaningfully challenge 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. ( [T]he argument . . contentions and the authorities and parts . must reasons of See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) for the contain them, record . with on . . appellant s citations which the to 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 abandonment of that claim on appeal. ). claim triggers Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Kelati (B.I.A. Jul. 16, 2012). 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 DENIED 2

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.