Tiani v. Holder ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1601
TCHENANG DANY-LUCIENNE TIANI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: January 4, 2010
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward Neufville, III, MORAISNEUFVILLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Silver
Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jonathan
Robbins, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tchenang Dany-Lucienne Tiani, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reconsider
its order dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s
denial of her motion to reopen. We deny the petition for
review.
The Board’s denial of a motion to reconsider is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d
475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2009). A motion
to reconsider asserts the Board made an error in its earlier
decision. The movant must specify the error of fact or law in
the Board’s prior decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)
(2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). The Board’s broad discretion
will be reversed only if its decision “lacked a rational
explanation, departed from established policies, or rested on an
impermissible basis.” Jean, 435 F.3d at 483 (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted). The burden is on the movant to
establish that reconsideration is warranted. INS v. Abudu, 485
U.S. 94, 110-11 (1988). “To be within a mile of being granted,
a motion for reconsideration has to give the tribunal to which
it is addressed a reason for changing its mind.” Ahmed v.
Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 2004). Motions that
simply repeat contentions that have already been rejected are
2
insufficient to convince the Board to reconsider a previous
decision. Id.We find the Board did not abuse its discretion in
finding that there was no error of law in the earlier order.
The Board reviewed the record, including Tiani’s affidavit, to
find she did not make a prima facie showing of either past
persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution.
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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3