Habtemariam v. Mukasey , 281 F. App'x 216 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1926
AMARE ZELEKE HABTEMARIAM,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: May 14, 2008 Decided: June 17, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Oti W. Nwosu, THE LAW OFFICE OF OTI W. NWOSU, Arlington, Virginia,
for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, William C. Minick,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Amare Zeleke Habtemariam, a native and citizen of
Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reconsider the
denial of his motion to reopen. 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
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.
Habtemariam’s motion to reconsider merely repeated his claims that
- 2 -
he was entitled to have his removal proceedings reopened because he
had entered into a good faith marriage to a United States citizen
and because of changed conditions in Ethiopia. He also failed to
address the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding, which
the Board had found was not clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, we deny Habtemariam’s 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 -