Case Name: Toyin SARUMI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-25
Citations: 231 F. App'x 254
Docket Number: No. 06-1953
Parties: Toyin SARUMI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 254–255

Head Matter:
Toyin SARUMI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent.
No. 06-1953.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 16, 2007.
Decided: June 25, 2007.
Alexander N. Agiliga, Law Offices of Alexander N. Agiliga, Largo, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Gladys M. SteffensGuzman, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Toyin Sarumi, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's order denying his requests for adjustment of status and voluntary departure and ordering his removal to Nigeria. Because Sarumi failed to raise any issues pertaining to the propriety of the denial of his requests for adjustment of status or voluntary departure 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: Sarumi, No. [ AXX-XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 4, 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.
PETITION DENIED.