Hakimi v. Holder , 360 F. App'x 497 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-1587
    SALIM HAKIMI,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals.
    Submitted:   December 16, 2009              Decided:   January 12, 2010
    Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Dean E. Wanderer, DEAN E. WANDERER & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax,
    Virginia, for Petitioner.       Tony West, Assistant Attorney
    General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Yamileth G.
    HandUber, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Salim    Hakimi,     a   native      and    citizen    of    Afghanistan,
    petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals    (“Board”)       dismissing      his    appeal    from    the     immigration
    judge’s decision finding he was not eligible for relief from
    removability       under    Immigration          and    Nationality       Act       (“INA”)
    § 212(c) because his aggravated felony conviction did not have a
    statutory counterpart under INA § 212(a) and because he was not
    eligible     for     § 212(c)    relief     because        his   aggravated         felony
    conviction     occurred      after    April       24,    1996,     citing       
    8 C.F.R. § 1212.3
    (f)(4) (2009).          We deny the petition for review.
    The Board cited two grounds for finding Hakimi was not
    eligible for INA § 212(c) relief.                      On appeal to this court,
    Hakimi, in his opening brief, only addresses one of the two
    grounds.     In A Helping Hand, LLC v. Baltimore County, MD, 
    515 F.3d 356
    , 369 (4th Cir. 2008), the court stated that “‘[i]t is a
    well settled rule that contentions not raised in the argument
    section of the opening brief are abandoned.’” (quoting United
    States v. Al-Hamdi, 
    356 F.3d 564
    , 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004)).                             In
    Yousefi v. INS, 
    260 F.3d 318
    , 326 (4th Cir. 2001), the court
    noted that specific adverse findings made by the Board which are
    not addressed by the Petitioner on appeal are abandoned.                               The
    court found that “[b]ecause [Petitioner’s] opening brief fails
    to   raise     a      challenge       to    the        Board’s     conclusion          that
    2
    [Petitioner’s]       1989   conviction       for   assault    with    a    dangerous
    weapon qualifies as a crime of moral turpitude, he has abandoned
    it.”       
    Id. at 326
    .    The court noted that on that basis alone, it
    affirmed the Board’s decision that the Petitioner was removable.
    Furthermore,      the    court   does   not    normally      consider      arguments
    raised for the first time in a reply brief.                   See SEC v. Pirate
    Investor, 
    580 F.3d 233
    , 255 n.23 (4th Cir. 2009).
    Because Hakimi did not address the Board’s alternate
    finding that he was not eligible for INA § 212(c) relief under 
    8 C.F.R. § 1212.3
    (f)(4), we deny the petition for review. *                         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
    *
    We note Hakimi does not challenge the finding that his
    predicate conviction was an aggravated felony.
    3