Cesar Alejandro Castillo Vasquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judges decision denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The Board concluded that Castillo Vasquezs claims failed for two reasons: (1) his proposed particular social group was not legally cognizable; and (2) he had not established that the Salvadoran government would be unwilling or unable to protect him from the alleged persecutor. Notably, either one of these two findings provided sufficient grounds for denying asylum and withholding of removal. See Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 124–28 (4th Cir. 2011).
We hold that Castillo Vasquez has waived this Courts review of the agencys dispositive finding regarding the Salvadoran governments willingness and ability to protect him, as his opening brief wholly fails to challenge this finding. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8) and Fourth Circuit case law, “[i]t is a well settled rule that contentions not raised in the argument section of the opening brief are abandoned.” A Helping Hand, LLC v. Baltimore Cnty., 515 F.3d 356, 369 (4th Cir. 2008); see also Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999). We have enforced this rule even where the appellants opening brief “takes a passing shot at the [waived] issue,” Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Intl LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Brown v. Nucor Corp., 785 F.3d 895, 923 (4th Cir. 2015)), or where the appellant tries to “remedy the situation by raising the issue in his reply brief.” Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 249 (4th Cir. 2013). Here, however, Castillo Vasquezs opening brief fails to even take a passing shot at the agencys finding regarding government control, nor has he filed any reply brief to remedy this problem. Thus, Castillo Vasquez has waived our review of this issue.
Because the agencys dispositive finding regarding government control remains unchallenged, we are left with no choice but to conclude that Castillo Vasquez is ineligible for relief and to deny his petition. Thus, we find it unnecessary to reach the merits of Castillo Vasquezs claims. 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
PER CURIAM:
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.