ADJEI-KYEM v. HOLDER, 436 Fed.Appx. 224 (4th Cir. 2011)


Robert ADJEI-KYEM, a/k/a Kofi Adjei-Kyem, a/k/a James KusiKyem, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 11-1085.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: June 7, 2011.
Decided: June 21, 2011.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Robert Adjei-Kyem, Petitioner Pro Se. Geoffrey Forney, William Charles Peachey, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Adjei-Kyem, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) upholding the immigration judge’s denial of his motion for a continuance and denying his motion to remand.[*]
We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion See Lendo v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review for the denial of a motion for a continuance); Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir. 1998) (setting forth standard of review for the denial of a motion to remand). We therefore uphold the denial of Adjei-Kyem’s motions for the reasons stated by the Board, see In re Adjei-Kyem (B.I.A. Dec. 29, 2010), and 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.

[*] In his informal brief before this court, Adjei-Kyem has failed to raise any challenges to the denial of his requests for cancellation of removal or voluntary departure. He has therefore waived appellate review of these claims. See
4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”); Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n. 7 (4th Cir. 2004).