Full Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2305 Doc: 44 Filed: 10/09/2026 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-2305 BHAVINKUMAR RAJEND PATEL, Petitioner, v. TODD BLANCHE, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: September 16, 2026 Decided: October 9, 2026 Before KING, WYNN, and BERNER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: B. Alan Seidler, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Madeline Henley, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-2305 Doc: 44 Filed: 10/09/2026 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Bhavinkumar Rajend Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen as untimely. But Patel does not address the primary basis for the Board’s decision—his failure to timely file a motion to reopen—in his brief filed in this court. Accordingly, we conclude that he has forfeited review of the Board’s order. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Ullah v. Garland, 72 F.4th 597, 602 (4th Cir. 2023) (explaining that a party forfeits appellate review of those issues and claims not raised in the party’s briefs); Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l, LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (“A party waives an argument by failing to present it in its opening brief or by failing to develop its argument—even if its brief takes a passing shot at the issue.” (citation modified)). Moreover, upon review, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Patel’s untimely motion. See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009) (reviewing denial of motion to reopen as untimely for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we deny 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 DENIED 2