Saa v. Keisler , 254 F. App'x 253 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1532
ANTOINE LETOOMBANTA NONON SAA,
Petitioner,
versus
PETER D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-624-172)
Submitted: November 6, 2007 Decided: November 20, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Oti W. Nwosu, THE LAW OFFICE OF OTI W. NWOSU, Arlington, Virginia,
for Petitioner. Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Leslie
McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antoine Letoombanta Nonon Saa, a native and citizen of
Togo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reconsider the denial of
his motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review.
We review the Board’s decision to 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) (2007). A motion for
reconsideration asserts that the Board made an error in its earlier
decision, Turri v. INS, 997 F.2d 1306, 1311 n.4 (10th Cir. 1993),
and requires the movant to specify the error of fact or law in the
prior Board decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (2007); Matter of
Cerna, 20 I. & N. Dec. 399, 402 (BIA 1991) (noting that a motion to
reconsider questions a decision for 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 the Board did not abuse its discretion. Saa
merely repeated in his motion to reconsider contentions raised in
- 2 -
his motion to reopen. He failed to address the adverse credibility
finding and did not establish prima facie eligibility for the
relief sought. Saa also failed to establish the Board erred by
finding some of the newly discovered evidence could have been
presented to the immigration judge at the merits hearing.
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 -