Compaore v. Gonzales , 139 F. App'x 574 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1072
GERARD COMPAORE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-546-792)
Submitted: June 27, 2005 Decided: July 26, 2005
Before WILKINSON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,
Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gerard Compaore, a native and citizen of Burkina Faso,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s
order denying his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture and an order of the
Board denying his motion for reconsideration. We deny his
petition.
We note that Compaore’s challenges to the underlying
decision of the immigration judge, as affirmed by the Board without
opinion, are not properly before the court because he did not file
a timely petition for review of the Board’s decision. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(1) (2000); Stone v. I.N.S., 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995)
(noting the time limit is “mandatory and jurisdictional”).
Compaore’s petition is timely only as to the denial of his motion
for reconsideration.
This court reviews the Board’s decision to grant or deny
a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty,
502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2005). A
motion for reconsideration asserts that the Board made an error in
its earlier decision and requires the movant to specify the error
of fact or law in the prior Board decision. See 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(b)(1) (2005); Matter of Cerna, 20 I. & N. Dec. 399, 402 (BIA
1991) (noting that a motion to reconsider questions a decision for
- 2 -
alleged errors in appraising the facts and the law). The burden is
on the movant to establish that reconsideration is warranted.
INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 110 (1988). “To be within a mile of
being granted, a motion for reconsideration has to give the
tribunal to which it is addressed a reason for changing its mind.”
Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 2004). Motions that
simply repeat contentions that have already been rejected are
insufficient to convince the Board to reconsider a previous
decision. Id. We find that the Board did not abuse its
discretion in denying Compaore’s motion to reconsider.
Accordingly, we deny Compaore’s 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 -