Shuayb Mustapha v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 12-1784 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1784 SHUAYB GBOLAHAN MUSTAPHA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 6, 2012 Decided: November 14, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director, Anthony P. Nicastro, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Shuayb Nigeria, Gbolahan petitions for Mustapha, review of a an native order and of citizen the Board Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reconsider. Mustapha fails to raise any arguments that of of Because meaningfully challenge the propriety of the Board s denial of his motion in the argument section of his brief, we find that he 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: Mustapha (B.I.A. May 25, 2012). oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials We dispense with legal before contentions the court are 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.