Saiku Bah v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-2282
SAIKU BAH,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: May 18, 2022 Decided: July 29, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Saiku Bah, Petitioner Pro Se. Tracie Nicole Jones, Marie Vanderbilt Robinson, Civil
Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Saiku Bah, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen and reconsider.
We will not review the Board’s finding that Bah’s motion was untimely and none of the
exceptions applied to excuse the untimeliness because Bah did not challenge these findings
in his informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170,
177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit
rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). We further conclude that
Bah was properly found removable due to his aggravated felony convictions, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(43)(G), and his convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude not arising out
of a single scheme of criminal conduct, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). Thus, this court lacks
jurisdiction to review the Board’s order in the absence of a question of law or constitutional
claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D).
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review. We deny Bah’s motion for stay,
petition for en banc hearing and his motion to reconsider the order denying his motion for
bail or release pending 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.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --