Case Name: Elias TRAORE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-17
Citations: 575 F. App'x 185
Docket Number: No. 13-2540
Parties: Elias TRAORE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 575
Pages: 185–185

Head Matter:
Elias TRAORE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-2540.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 3, 2014.
Decided: June 17, 2014.
Randall L. Johnson, Johnson & Associates, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Julia J. Tyler, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Elias Traore, a native and citizen of Mali, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reconsider. Because Traore fails to raise any arguments 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: Traore (B.I.A. Nov.25, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.