Li Dong v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 478 F. App'x 779 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2423
LI JUAN DONG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: May 24, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Zhiyuan Qian, LAW OFFICES OF GERALD KARIKARI, P.C., New York,
New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Keith I. McManus, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Joseph A. O’Connell, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Li Juan Dong, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s order denying her motions to reopen and to
reconsider. We deny the petition for review.
A motion to reconsider must specify the errors of law
or fact in the immigration judge’s prior decision. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(6)(c) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(2) (2012). The
purpose of a motion to reopen is to present new facts supported
by affidavits and other evidentiary materials. An alien may
file one motion to reopen within ninety days of the entry of a
final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C) (2006);
8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), (3). The alien must show that the
evidence sought to be offered in a motion to reopen is material
and was not available and could not have been discovered or
presented at the former hearing. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3).
This court reviews the denial of either motion for
abuse of discretion. Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th
Cir. 2009); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir.
2009). The “denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed with
extreme deference, given that motions to reopen are disfavored
because every delay works to the advantage of the deportable
alien who wishes merely to remain in the United States.”
2
Sadhvani v. Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation marks omitted). The court will reverse the decision
only if it is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.
Narine, 559 F.3d at 249. “[A]dministrative findings of fact are
conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled
to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006).
We have reviewed the record and conclude there was no
abuse of discretion. Dong failed to show that the proposed
evidence was not available and could not have been presented at
the merits hearing. She further failed to show that the
immigration judge erred as a matter of law by declining to
consider the evidence submitted with her written closing
argument or that she was denied due process.
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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3