Mary Nasoh v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 11-1240 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1240 MARY NASOH, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 4, 2011 Decided: November 30, 2011 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore N. Nkwenti, LAW OFFICE OF THEODORE NKWENTI, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel, Susan K. Houser, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Mary Nasoh, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) denying her motions to reopen and reconsider. Because Nasoh fails to raise any arguments that meaningfully challenge the propriety of the Board s denial of her motions to reopen and reconsider 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 . . . 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 specific claim n.6 (4th dictates triggers Cir. of 1999) [Rule abandonment ( Failure 28] of with to respect that claim comply to a on with the particular appeal. ). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. We dispense with See In re: Nasoh (B.I.A. Feb. 17, 2011). 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 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.
