Case Name: Charles Nchaw NDAH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-05
Citations: 460 F. App'x 265
Docket Number: No. 11-1674
Parties: Charles Nchaw NDAH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 460
Pages: 265–265

Head Matter:
Charles Nchaw NDAH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-1674.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 20, 2011.
Decided: Jan. 5, 2012.
Celestine Tatung, Amity, Kum & Sule-man, PA, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant Director, Joseph D. Hardy, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Nchaw Ndah, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying his motion to reconsider. Because Ndah fails to raise any arguments that meaningfully challenge the propriety of the Board's denial of his motion to reconsider in the argument section of his brief, we find that he has failed to preserve any issues for review. See Fed. RApp. 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: Ndah (B.I.A. May 31, 2011). 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.