Kilo v. Holder , 412 F. App'x 559 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1452
ROSELLE JIMAI KILO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: February 15, 2011
Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle L. C. Beach-Oswald, BEACH-OSWALD IMMIGRATION LAW
ASSOCIATES, PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West,
Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer P. Levings, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Julia J. Tyler, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Roselle Jimai Kilo, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
came to the United States on December 23, 2005, as a visitor and
overstayed her visa. On July 12, 2007, an Immigration Judge
denied her application for asylum or withholding of removal.
Kilo subsequently appealed, and that appeal was dismissed by the
Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) on June 15, 2009. She now
petitions for review of an order of the Board denying her motion
to reconsider.
The Board’s decision to grant or deny a motion to
reconsider is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(a) (2010); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th
Cir. 2006). We have reviewed the administrative record and find
no abuse of discretion in the denial of relief on Kilo’s motion.
To prevail in a motion to reconsider, a petitioner must point to
specific errors of law or fact in the Board’s decision. See
Ogundipe v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 257, 263 (4th Cir. 2008).
Petitioner’s brief alleges no such errors and instead urges a
reevaluation of the Board’s conclusions. We accordingly deny
the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.
See In re: Kilo (B.I.A. Mar. 22, 2010). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3