Case Name: Aloysius Tabe BISONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-14
Citations: 473 F. App'x 247
Docket Number: No. 11-2343
Parties: Aloysius Tabe BISONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 247–248

Head Matter:
Aloysius Tabe BISONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-2343.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 10, 2012.
Decided: May 14, 2012.
Randall L. Johnson, Johnson & Associates, P.C., Arlington, VA, for Petitioner. Stewart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, James Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Stephen M. Elliott, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Aloysius Tabe Bisong, 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 Bisong fails to raise any ar guments 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.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: Bisong, 2011 WL 5865104 (B.I.A. Oct. 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.