Court Opinion

ID: 9893683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-29 21:00:33.861661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:04.137068
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1200      Doc: 30         Filed: 10/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1200

        JIA QIANG WANG,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

        On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

        Submitted: September 22, 2023                                 Decided: October 27, 2023

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Meer M. M. Rahman, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton,
        Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation
        Counsel, Jennifer P. Williams, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil
        Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
        Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1200       Doc: 30        Filed: 10/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Jia Qiang Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions

        for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his

        appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,

        withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We dismiss

        the petition for review.

               The Board determined that Wang failed to challenge the bases on which the IJ found

        Wang not credible or the finding that he did not sufficiently corroborate his claim. In this

        proceeding, Wang has simply submitted the brief he filed before the Board. He does not

        challenge in any meaningful way the Board’s reasons for dismissing his appeal. “In

        general, a party waives an argument by failing to present it in its opening brief. . . . [A]

        party also waives an issue by failing to develop its argument—even if its brief takes a

        passing shot at the issue.” United States v. Fernandez Sanchez, 46 F.4th 211, 219

        (4th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up).      The opening brief should contain the petitioner’s

        “contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the

        record on which the [petitioner] relies.” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Suarez-Valenzuela v.

        Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248 (4th Cir. 2013). “It is a well settled rule that contentions not

        raised in the argument section of the opening brief are abandoned.”             A Helping

        Hand, LLC v. Baltimore Cnty., 515 F.3d 356, 369 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks

        omitted).

               Wang fails to challenge the Board’s finding that he did not question the IJ’s reasons

        for deciding he was not credible and did not sufficiently corroborate his claim. Because

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1200         Doc: 30    Filed: 10/27/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

        Wang fails to meaningfully challenge the Board’s decision, we dismiss the petition for

        review. 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 DISMISSED

                                                  3