UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2323

JOONG H. CHO; KYOUNG S. KIM; KYU D. CHO,

Petitioners,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: May 2, 2011 Decided: May 20, 2011

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John D. Shin, Mark R. Millstein, Falls Church, Virginia, for 

Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, John S. 

Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Michael C. Heyse, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joong H. Cho, Kyoung S. Kim and Kyu D. Cho are natives 

and citizens of South Korea. They petition for review an order 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying their 

motions to reopen and to reconsider. Because we conclude the 

Petitioners have abandoned any challenge to the Board’s order, 

we dismiss the petition for review.

The Petitioners did not file a timely petition for 

review from the April 2, 2010 order dismissing the appeal from 

the immigration judge’s decision. Their brief, however, is 

almost entirely an attack on the Board’s dismissal order and the 

immigration judge’s ruling. This court does not have 

jurisdiction to review that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) 

(2006) (stating that the petition for review must be filed no 

later than thirty days after the date of the final order of 

removal). It is well-settled that the subsequent filing with 

the Board of a motion to reconsider does not toll the time for 

filing a petition for review in the Court of Appeals. See

Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394, 405-06 (1995).

The denial of a motion to reconsider is reviewed for 

abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2010); Narine v. 

Holder, 559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir. 2009); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 

F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006). This court also reviews the 

denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. 
3

§ 1003.2(a); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); 

Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir. 2006). Under

Rule 28(a)(9)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

“the argument [section of the brief] . . . 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[.]” Furthermore, the “[f]ailure to comply with 

the specific dictates of [Rule 28] with respect to a particular 

claim triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal.” Edwards v. 

City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999); see 

also Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004)

(failure to challenge the denial of relief under the CAT results 

in abandonment of that challenge). In their brief, the 

Petitioners fail to challenge the Board’s order denying 

reopening and reconsideration. Specifically, the Petitioners 

fail to assert that the Board erred finding that on appeal they 

did not raise a meaningful challenge to the immigration judge’s 

decision. Similarly, the Petitioners fail to challenge the 

Board’s findings that reopening was not warranted and that their 

“new” evidence was previously available or cumulative. 

Because the Petitioners have abandoned any challenge 

to the Board’s order denying their motions to reconsider and 

reopen and this court does not have jurisdiction to review the 

Board’s order dismissing the appeal from the immigration judge’s 
4

decision, we dismiss 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 DISMISSED