Yared Abebe v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 480 F. App'x 736 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1229
YARED ASSEFA ABEBE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 26, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012
Before KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Garfield, GARFIELD LAW GROUP, LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Kristen Giuffreda
Chapman, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Yared Assefa Abebe, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion for reconsideration. We
deny the petition for review.
A motion to reconsider must specify the errors of law
or fact in the Board’s prior decision. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(6)(c) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b) (2012). This
court reviews the denial of a motion for reconsideration for
abuse of discretion. Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th
Cir. 2009); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006).
The court will reverse the Board’s decision only if it is
arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law. Narine, 559 F.3d at
249. “[A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless
any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006).
We conclude there was no abuse of discretion. Abebe
failed to raise the factual issues on appeal to the Board,
despite specific instructions to do so. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.3(b) (2012). The Board did not abuse its discretion by
finding that Abebe could not use a motion to reconsider to alert
the Board to his contentions regarding the immigration judge’s
factual findings that supported the adverse credibility finding
when he did not raise those arguments on appeal.
2
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