Case Name: Sadio DIALLO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-18
Citations: 203 F. App'x 512
Docket Number: No. 05-2252
Parties: Sadio DIALLO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 512–512

Head Matter:
Sadio DIALLO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-2252.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 28, 2006.
Decided: Oct. 18, 2006.
Patrick G. Tzeuton, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Donald E. Keener, Deputy Director, Bryan S. Beier, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Sadio Diallo, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying her motion to reconsider its previous order, which affirmed, without opinion, the immigration judge's denial of Diallo's requests for asylum and withholding of removal. Because Diallo failed to raise any issues pertaining to the propriety of the Board's denial of her motion to reconsider in the argument section of her brief, we find that she has failed to preserve any issues for review. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) ("[T]he argument . 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."); 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. See In re: Diallo, No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 11, 2005). 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.