Ana Patricia Umanzor-Mejia; K.n. B-U v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1214
ANA PATRICIA UMANZOR-MEJIA; K.N. B-U,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: February 11, 2022 Decided: March 17, 2022
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Mark J. Devine, DEVINE & BEARD LAW OFFICE, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Petitioners. Brian Boynton, Assistant Attorney General, Sabatino F. Leo,
Assistant Director, Madeline Henley, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Ana Patricia Umanzor-Mejia and her daughter, K.N. B-U (“Petitioners”), both
natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of a February 12, 2021, order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying their motion for reconsideration and
declining to reopen their proceedings. In their opening brief, however, Petitioners neither
address our standard for reviewing the February 12 order nor challenge the Board’s reasons
for denying reconsideration and reopening. Indeed, Petitioners’ opening brief does not
even mention the February 12 order. We thus conclude that Petitioners have abandoned
any challenge to that order. See Hensley ex rel. N.C. v. Price, 876 F.3d 573, 580 n.5 (4th
Cir. 2017) (recognizing that failure to raise argument in opening brief constitutes
abandonment of that argument under Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A), and emphasizing that it
is not an appellate court’s “job to wade through the record and make arguments for either
party” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241,
248-49 (4th Cir. 2013) (explaining that failure to raise issue in opening brief constitutes
abandonment of issue). And because the Board’s February 12, 2021, order is the only
order over which we may exercise jurisdiction, we deny the petition for review.*
* Petitioners’ opening brief (and sole appellate brief) challenges the Board’s
September 23, 2020, order dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of
their continuance motion. Petitioners never petitioned this court for review of the
September 23 order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --