UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1875

GABRIEL SANCHEZ-BELTRAN,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: March 5, 2015 Decided: March 10, 2015

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

W. Rob Heroy, GOODMAN, CARR PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Petitioner. Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General, 

Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director, Andrew Oliveira, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Gabriel Sanchez-Beltran, a native and citizen of Mexico, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion for reconsideration. 

Because Sanchez-Beltran has abandoned review of the Board’s 

order, we dismiss the petition for review. 

On March 26, 2014, the Board dismissed Sanchez-Beltran’s 

appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his 

request for cancellation of removal, or, in the alternative, 

voluntary departure. On July 29, 2014, the Board denied 

Sanchez-Beltran’s motion for reconsideration. On August 26, 

2014, Sanchez-Beltran filed a timely petition for review from 

the Board’s order denying reconsideration. Sanchez-Beltran had 

thirty days from the Board’s final order to file the petition 

for review. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2012). This thirty day time 

period is “jurisdictional in nature and must be construed with 

strict fidelity to [its] terms.” Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 

405 (1995). It is “not subject to equitable tolling.” Id.

Sanchez-Beltran’s August 26, 2014 petition for review is only 

timely as to the Board’s July 29, 2014 order denying 

reconsideration. Thus, this Court only has jurisdiction to 

consider that order.

Under Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

“the argument [section of the brief] . . . must contain . . . 
3

appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations 

to the authorities and parts of the record on which the 

appellant relies.” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). 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). 

There is “longstanding Fourth Circuit precedent” holding that we 

do not consider an issue that was forfeited because it was not 

discussed in the Petitioner’s opening brief. Ogundipe v. 

Mukasey, 541 F.3d 257, 263 n.4 (4th Cir. 2008). The fact that 

the Petitioner may raise the issue for the first time in his 

reply brief does not remedy the matter. Yousefi v. INS, 260 

F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir. 2001). 

Sanchez-Beltran has abandoned review of the Board’s order 

denying reconsideration because he does not use his opening 

brief to cite the statutory authority for reconsideration or the 

standard used by this court to review the denial of 

reconsideration. His brief is more properly seen as a challenge 

to the IJ’s decision denying voluntary departure and the Board’s 

order dismissing his appeal. 
4

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED