Case Name: Vijaykumar A. PATEL; Bhavanaben B. Patel, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Michael CHERTOFF, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-25
Citations: 270 F. App'x 273
Docket Number: No. 06-2146
Parties: Vijaykumar A. PATEL; Bhavanaben B. Patel, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Michael CHERTOFF, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 270
Pages: 273–273

Head Matter:
Vijaykumar A. PATEL; Bhavanaben B. Patel, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Michael CHERTOFF, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 06-2146.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 12, 2008.
Decided: March 25, 2008.
R. Scott Oswald, Nicholas W. Woodfield, Employment Law Group, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Tarra DeShields-Minnis, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Vijaykumar A. Patel and his wife, Bhavanaben B. Patel, natives and citizens of India, appeal the district court's order denying their motion for reconsideration of its dismissal of their declaratory judgment action. In their action, the Patels sought to challenge the regulation set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 1245.10© (2007) as ultra vires. Because the Patels failed to raise any issues pertaining to the propriety of the district court's finding that it lacked jurisdiction over their challenges to the regulation, we find that they 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 affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Patel v. Chertoff, No. 8:05-cv-01304-PJM (D.Md. Aug. 31, 2006). 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.
AFFIRMED.