Albert Bikim v. Michael Mukasey
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ALBERT EDEZE BIKIM, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
July 30, 2008
September 23, 2008
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICES OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel, T. Bo Stanton, Trial Attorney, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Albert Edeze Bikim, a native and citizen of Cameroon, 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, A motion for
323-24 (1992); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2008).
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) (2008); 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 INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 110
that reconsideration is warranted. (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." 249 (7th Cir. 2004). Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247,
Motions that simply repeat contentions that
have already been rejected are insufficient to convince the Board to reconsider a previous decision. Id. The
We find the Board did not abuse its discretion.
Board adequately considered and rejected the arguments Bikim raised
- 2 -
in his motion to reconsider.
Bikim failed to provide evidence
showing that the alleged newly discovered evidence, such as his political party membership cards, could not have been presented earlier. We note we do not have jurisdiction to consider the
Board's denial of Bikim's motion to reopen because he failed to file a timely petition for review from that order. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394, 405 (1995). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We See Stone v.
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.
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?