Bulessa v. Mukasey , 302 F. App'x 162 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1522
MARU DABA BULESSA,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 17, 2008 Decided: December 4, 2008
Before MICHAEL and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alan M. Parra, LAW OFFICE OF ALAN M. PARRA, ESQUIRE, Silver
Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant
Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Brianne Whelan Cohen, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Maru Daba Bulessa, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of the order from the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his
motion to reopen.
This court reviews the denial of Bulessa’s motion for
reconsideration for abuse of discretion. See Ogundipe v.
Mukasey, 541 F.3d 257, 263 (4th Cir. 2008). A motion for
reconsideration must specify the errors of law or fact in the
previous decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C) (2006); see also 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(2) (2008). We will reverse the Board’s decision
for abuse of discretion only if it is arbitrary, capricious, or
contrary to law. Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 745 (4th Cir.
2006). “[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 find the Board did not abuse its discretion in
affirming the immigration judge’s order denying the motion to
reconsider. We further note we do not have jurisdiction to
review the Board’s finding that there were no circumstances
present warranting sua sponte reopening. See Tamenut v.
Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1000, 1004 (8th Cir. 2008).
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