Opinion
21-2282
07-29-2022
SAIKU BAH, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
Saiku Bah, Petitioner Pro Se. Tracie Nicole Jones, Marie Vanderbilt Robinson, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: May 18, 2022
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Saiku Bah, Petitioner Pro Se.
Tracie Nicole Jones, Marie Vanderbilt Robinson, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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