Case ID: f-appx_144/html/1000-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bedes Tamasang NDENGE Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 04-1543, 05-2032.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 23, 2005.
    Decided: Oct. 12, 2005.
    Albert Usumanu, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Petitioner. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Respondent.
    Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Petitions denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Bedes Tamasang Ndenge, a native and citizen of Cameroon, challenges two orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). In No. 04-1543, Ndenge seeks review of an order of the Board affirming the immigration judge’s order finding Ndenge removable and denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In No. 05-2032, Ndenge petitions for review of a Board order denying his motion to reopen the removal proceedings.

Ndenge failed to raise any argument in his brief concerning the Board’s order in No. 04-1543. Therefore, he has abandoned appellate review of this order. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999). In No. 05-2032, we have reviewed the administrative record and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Ndenge’s motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2005).

We accordingly deny the petitions for review in these cases. 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.

PETITIONS DENIED