Kenneth Nketsiah v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A072-166-466. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999770753]. [15-1397]

Appeal: 15-1397

Doc: 31

Filed: 03/09/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1397

KENNETH EKOW NKETSIAH,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

January 25, 2016

Decided:

March 9, 2016

Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Kreiss, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
Benjamin C.
Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Terri J.
Scadron, Assistant Director, Manuel A. Palau, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1397

Doc: 31

Filed: 03/09/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Kenneth

Ekow

Nketsiah,

a

native

and

citizen

of

Ghana,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
denying

Nketsiah’s

motion

for

reconsideration

of

the

Board’s

prior order dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s
order denying Nketsiah’s application for a stand-alone waiver of
inadmissibility, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i) (2012), and ordering him
removed to Ghana.

We deny the petition for review.

A motion to reconsider asserts that the Board made an error
in its earlier decision, and the movant must specify that error
of fact or law.

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (2015).

The denial

of a motion to reconsider is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Urbina v. Holder, 745 F.3d 736, 741 (4th Cir. 2014); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(a)
motion

to

(2015).

This

reconsider

court

“only

if

will
the

irrationally, or contrary to law.”

reverse

Board

a

acted

denial

of

a

arbitrarily,

Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d

246, 249 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Nketsiah does not satisfy this high standard.
of

Our review

the

Nketsiah’s

record,

administrative
support

the

including

proceedings,
Board’s

the
reveals

factual

transcript

of

substantial

determination

evidence

that,

when

to
the

immigration judge denied Nketsiah’s waiver application, no other
form of relief — including a request for voluntary departure —
was

pending.

See

8

U.S.C.
2

§ 1252(b)(4)(B)

(2012)

Appeal: 15-1397

Doc: 31

Filed: 03/09/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

(“[A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.”).

We thus discern no abuse of discretion in the

Board’s denial of Nketsiah’s motion for reconsideration of this
issue.
In addition to the claimed factual error, Nketsiah also
presented in his motion for reconsideration an intricate legal
argument to support Nketsiah’s position that his request for
voluntary departure remained pending when the immigration judge
denied the waiver application.

Nketsiah advances the same line

of argument in this court.
But “[a] motion to reconsider is not a mechanism by which a
party may file a new brief before the Board raising additional
legal arguments that are unrelated to those issues raised before
the Immigration Judge and on appeal.”
Dec. 56, 58 (B.I.A. 2006).
supports

its

denial

of

this

In re O-S-G-, 24 I. & N.

The Board cited this authority to
aspect

of

Nketsiah’s

motion

to

reconsider, in which Nketsiah asserted “a legal argument that
could have been raised earlier in the proceedings.”

Id.

We

likewise discern no abuse of discretion in this ruling, which
Nketsiah does not substantively challenge in his opening brief.
See Martinez-Lopez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 169, 172 (1st Cir. 2013)
(surveying

circuit

authority

and

joining

the

other

circuit

courts of appeals that have held “that the office of a motion to
3

Appeal: 15-1397

Doc: 31

Filed: 03/09/2016

reconsider

in

an

ordinarily

limited

Pg: 4 of 4

immigration
to

the

case,

under

consideration

of

current

law,

factual

or

is

legal

errors in the disposition of issues previously raised”).
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

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

4