Atul Sharma v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A205-008-068 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999642233].. [14-2042]

Appeal: 14-2042

Doc: 25

Filed: 08/18/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2042

ATUL SHARMA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

August 7, 2015

Before WYNN and
Circuit Judge.

DIAZ,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

August 18, 2015

HAMILTON,

Senior

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark A. Mancini, WASSERMAN, MANCINI & CHANG, Washington, D.C.,
for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Kristen
Giuffreda Chapman, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2042

Doc: 25

Filed: 08/18/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Atul Sharma, a native and citizen of India, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, denying
his motion to reconsider.

We deny the petition for review.

A motion to reconsider must specify the errors of law or
fact

in

the

Board’s

prior

decision.

See

§ 1229a(c)(6)(C) (2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b) (2015).

8

U.S.C.

We review

the denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion and
will

reverse

the

Board’s

decision

irrational, or contrary to law.

only

if

it

is

arbitrary,

Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d 246,

249 (4th Cir. 2009).
We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in
finding Sharma did not show there was an error of law or fact in
the

prior

decision

and

denying

the

motion

to

reconsider.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

2