Case Name: Keiria Mohamed ABDULKADIR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-19
Citations: 88 F. App'x 572
Docket Number: No. 03-1843
Parties: Keiria Mohamed ABDULKADIR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 572–572

Head Matter:
Keiria Mohamed ABDULKADIR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-1843.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 21, 2004.
Decided Feb. 19, 2004.
David Laundon Cleveland, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Blair T. O’Connor, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, 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Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Keiria Mohamed Abdulkadir, a native and citizen of Eritrea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board"). The order denied her motion to reconsider the Board's previous order affirming the immigration judge's denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
We note that Abdulkadir dedicated her entire brief to rearguing the merits of her asylum and withholding of removal claims and failed to raise any arguments regarding the validity of the Board's denial of her motion to reconsider. Thus, we find that none of her claims are properly before this court because she failed to file a timely petition for review from the Board's initial order of February 21, 2003.
Accordingly, we are constrained to deny the petition for review on the reasoning of the Board. See In re: Abdulkadir, No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ] (B.I.A. June 18, 2003). 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