Background
Bhavinkumar Rajend Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitioned the Fourth Circuit for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying his motion to reopen immigration proceedings.
The Board denied the motion because Patel filed it after the applicable deadline. In his opening brief to the Fourth Circuit, Patel did not address that untimeliness ruling, which was the primary basis for the Board’s decision.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit held that Patel forfeited appellate review of the Board’s order by failing to challenge its principal ground for denying reopening. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8)(A), issues not raised and developed in an appellant’s opening brief are forfeited.
The court also reviewed the record and found no abuse of discretion in the Board’s denial of Patel’s untimely motion. It therefore denied the petition for review without oral argument.
Key Takeaways
- A petitioner must directly challenge the Board’s dispositive reasoning in the opening appellate brief.
- Failing to brief the timeliness issue forfeited review of the Board’s denial of reopening.
- The court independently found no abuse of discretion in denying the untimely motion.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that immigration petitioners must address every independently dispositive ground supporting the agency’s ruling. Even potentially viable objections will not preserve review when the opening brief leaves the Board’s central rationale unanswered.
The unpublished opinion also illustrates the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard governing appellate review of denials of motions to reopen as untimely.