Patel v. Chertoff, No. 06-2146 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2146 VIJAYKUMAR A. PATEL; BHAVANABEN B. PATEL, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Security, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:05-cv-01304-PJM) Submitted: March 12, 2008 Decided: March 25, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. R. Scott Oswald, Nicholas W. Woodfield, EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Tarra DeShields-Minnis, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Vijaykumar A. Patel and his wife, Bhavanaben B. Patel, natives and citizens of India, appeal the district court s order denying their motion for reconsideration of its dismissal of their declaratory judgment action. In their action, the Patels sought to challenge the regulation set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 1245.10(j) (2007) as ultra vires. Because the Patels failed to raise any issues pertaining to the propriety of the district court s finding that it lacked jurisdiction over their challenges to the regulation, we find that they 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 affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Patel v. Chertoff, No. 8:05-cv-01304- PJM (D. Md. Aug. 31, 2006). 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. AFFIRMED - 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.