Wen Bo Lin v. Mukasey ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1375
WEN BO LIN,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-689-249)
Submitted: December 12, 2007 Decided: February 28, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yee Ling Poon, LAW OFFICES OF YEE LING POON, New York, New York,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
Joshua E. Braunstein, Senior Litigation Counsel, Stacey I. Young,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Wen Bo Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic
of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reconsider the
order affirming the immigration judge’s order denying his
applications for adjustment of status, asylum, withholding from
removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture. We
deny the petition for review.
We review the Board’s decision to deny a motion to
reconsider for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314,
323-24 (1992); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2007). A motion for
reconsideration asserts that the Board made an error in its earlier
decision, Turri v. INS, 997 F.2d 1306, 1311 n.4 (10th Cir. 1993),
and requires the movant to specify the error of fact or law in the
prior Board decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (2007); Matter of
Cerna, 20 I. & N. Dec. 399, 402 (B.I.A. 1991) (noting that a motion
to reconsider questions a decision for alleged errors in appraising
the facts and the law). 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
- 2 -
have already been rejected are insufficient to convince the Board
to reconsider a previous decision. Id.We find the Board did not abuse its discretion. Lin
merely repeated in his motion to reconsider his claim that his wife
was forcibly sterilized. He failed to address the adverse
credibility finding.
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 -