Matanga v. Mukasey , 274 F. App'x 305 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1989
PAULINE ATONGMBA MATANGA,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-196-139)
Submitted: April 4, 2008 Decided: April 21, 2008
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James A. Roberts, LAW OFFICE OF JAMES A. ROBERTS, Falls Church,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Aviva L.
Poczter, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Pauline Atongmba Matanga, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reconsider the
order affirming the immigration judge’s order denying her
applications for 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 the Board made an error in its earlier
decision 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 (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 insufficient to
convince the Board to reconsider a previous decision. Id.- 2 -
We find the Board did not abuse its discretion. Matanga
merely repeated in her motion to reconsider arguments raised on
appeal. She also failed to show error in the Board’s finding that
she did not establish 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 -