Adjangba Koussodji v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 08-1670 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1670 ADJANGBA KOFFI KOUSSODJI, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 12, 2009 Decided: March 19, 2009 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rev. Uduak J. Ubom, UBOM LAW GROUP, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle Gorden Latour, Assistant Director, Jessica E. Sherman, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Petitioner Adjangba Koffi Koussodji, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals reconsider or reopen. ( Board ) denying his motion to We deny the petition for review. A motion to reconsider asserts the Board made an error in its earlier decision. fact or law in the The movant must specify the error of Board s § 1003.2(b)(1) (2008). prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. We review the Board s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2008); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006). The Board s decision broad lacked discretion a will rational be reversed explanation, only if departed its from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis. Id. at 483 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We also of review discretion. the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir. 2006). A denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor such motions. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc). The motion shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion 2 is granted and shall be supported by affidavits or other C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (2008). evidentiary material. 8 It shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and could discovered or presented at the former hearing. not have been Id. We note that Koussodji failed to make any challenge in his brief to reopening. the Board s order denying reconsideration or Under Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the argument . . . must contain . . . appellant s contentions and the authorities and parts relies. Furthermore, specific dictates reasons of of for the the [Rule them, record with on [f]ailure 28] with citations which to respect the comply to a claim triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal. to the appellant with the particular Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999); see also Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004) (failure to challenge the denial of relief under the CAT results in abandonment of that challenge). Accordingly, we find Koussodji abandoned his challenge to the Board s order denying his motion for reconsideration or to reopen because he did not raise a challenge to the order in the argument section of his brief. review. legal We deny the petition for We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 4
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.
