Elias Traore v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-2540 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2540 ELIAS TRAORE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 3, 2014 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. NIEMEYER, Decided: Circuit Judges, June 17, 2014 and HAMILTON, Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Julia J. Tyler, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Elias Traore, a native and citizen of Mali, petitions for review of an order of the Board denying his motion to reconsider. of Immigration Appeals Because Traore fails to raise any arguments that meaningfully challenge the propriety of the Board s denial of his motion to reconsider in the argument section of his brief, we find that he has failed to preserve any issues for review. argument the See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) ( [T]he . . . must reasons for contain them, with . . . appellant s contentions and citations authorities and to the 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 deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. 25, 2013). legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this See In re: Traore (B.I.A. Nov. court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
