Case ID: f-appx_232/html/0328-01.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

Mehdi KHAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-2305.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 30, 2007.
    Decided: July 10, 2007.
    Richard W. Chang, Wasserman, Mancini & Chang, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Senior Litigation Counsel, Anh-Thu P. Mai, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Mehdi Khan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reconsider and/or reopen. Insofar as Khan challenges the Board’s prior orders, we lack jurisdiction because Khan did not file a timely petition for review from those orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995). While Khan’s brief raises challenges to both of those prior orders, he fails to raise any issue with respect to the November 14, 2006, order, the only order from which his petition for review is timely. Issues not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned. Pleasurecraft Marine Engine Co. v. Thermo Power Corp., 272 F.3d 654, 657 (4th Cir.2001); 11126 Baltimore Blvd. v. Prince George’s County, Md., 58 F.3d 988, 993 n. 7 (4th Cir.1995) (relying on Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(6) and holding that issues not briefed or argued in federal appeal are deemed abandoned). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

We note the Board did not abuse its discretion denying Khan’s motion to reconsider or reopen. Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir.2006); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir.1999).

We deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED.