Mohamed Amged Ali Zokailah v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-2079
MOHAMED AMGED ALI ZOKAILAH,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: April 29, 2022 Decided: June 22, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HEYTENS, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Nash Fayad, FAYAD LAW, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian
Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director,
Office of Immigration Litigation, A. Ashley Arthur, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration
Litigation, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mohamed Amged Ali Zokailah, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) adopting and affirming the
immigration judge’s decision and dismissing his appeal. We conclude that we are without
jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision regarding whether Zokailah complied with the
one-year time limit for filing an asylum application, or established changed or
extraordinary circumstances justifying waiver of that time limit. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(B), (a)(3); Salgado-Sosa v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 451, 459 (4th Cir. 2018). We
further conclude that Zokailah has waived review of the agency’s denial of withholding of
removal because he did not challenge the denial in the argument section of his opening
brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248
(4th Cir. 2013) (noting that failure to comply with Rule 28 “triggers abandonment of that
claim”). Lastly, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of
protection under the Convention Against Torture. See Cabrera Vasquez v. Barr, 919 F.3d
218, 222 (4th Cir. 2019) (stating standard of review).
Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part 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 IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART

-- 2 of 2 --