James Nkuo v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920090707

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1645 JAMES SONG NKUO, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: July 7, 2009 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter Nyoh, PETER NYOH & ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Janice K. Redfern, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: James Song Nkuo, 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 second motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review. We review the Board's denial of a motion to reconsider with extreme deference and only for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(a) (2009); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999). its The Board's broad discretion will be reversed only if "lacked a or rational rested explanation, on an departed from decision established policies, impermissible basis." Jean, 435 F.3d at 483 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A motion for reconsideration asserts the Board made an error in its earlier decision, Jean, 435 F.3d at 482-83, and requires the movant to specify that error. 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(b)(1) (2009); In re Cerna, 20 I. & N. Dec. 399, 402 (B.I.A. 1991) (noting that a motion to reconsider questions a decision law). for alleged errors in appraising the facts and the "To be within a mile of being granted, a motion for has to give the tribunal to which it is reconsideration addressed a reason for changing its mind." 388 F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 2004). 2 Ahmed v. Ashcroft, Motions that simply repeat contentions that have already been rejected are insufficient to convince the Board to reconsider a previous decision. We denying the find motion the to Board did not abuse its Id. in the discretion we deny reconsider. Accordingly, petition for review. facts and legal before We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the contentions the court materials would decisional process. PETITION DENIED 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?