Case Name: Vincent ONWUBUARIRI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-20
Citations: 322 F. App'x 307
Docket Number: No. 08-2189
Parties: Vincent ONWUBUARIRI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 322
Pages: 307–308

Head Matter:
Vincent ONWUBUARIRI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-2189.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 16, 2009.
Decided: April 20, 2009.
Vincent Onwubuariri, Petitioner Pro Se. Paul Thomas Cygnarowicz, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Vincent Onwubuariri, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying his motion to reconsider. Because Onwubuariri has failed to challenge the Board's denial of reconsideration in his informal brief, we find that he has waived appellate review. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting review to issues raised in the informal brief on appeal); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999) (finding that a party's failure to raise an issue in the opening brief constituted abandonment of that issue). We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Onwubuariri (B.I.A. Sept. 23, 2008). 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.
Even if Onwubuariri had not waived appellate review, we note that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion on the ground that he failed to identify any error of fact or law in the prior Board decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (2008).