Jose Lopez v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 442 F. App'x 792 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1123
JOSE V. LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 7, 2011 Decided: August 10, 2011
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jason Pope, BERLIN AND ASSOCIATES, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Luis E.
Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, John B. Holt, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jose V. Lopez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals denying his motion to reconsider. We deny the petition
for review.
The denial of a motion to reconsider is reviewed for
abuse of discretion. Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th
Cir. 2009); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006).
To be successful, a motion to reconsider must assert that the
Board made an error of law or fact in its earlier decision. See
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). This court will reverse a denial of a
motion to reconsider “only if the Board acted arbitrarily,
irrationally, or contrary to law.” Narine, 559 F.3d at 249(internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that the Board did not abuse its
discretion in ruling that there was no error in its earlier
decision that Lopez was not eligible for voluntary departure
under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a)(1) (2006). We also conclude that the
Board did not err in finding that Lopez failed to meet his
burden of showing that he was eligible for voluntary departure
under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(1).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3