Jose Castano v. Michael Mukasey , 326 F. App'x 415 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 07-3912
    ___________
    Jose Galvis Castano,                   *
    *
    Petitioner,               *
    * Petition for Review of
    v.                              * an Order of the Board
    * of Immigration Appeals.
    1
    Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General *
    of the United States,                  * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Respondent.               *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 21, 2009
    Filed: May 28, 2009
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Colombian citizen Jose Castano petitions for review of an order of the Board
    of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reconsider. We deny his
    petition.
    1
    Eric H. Holder, Jr., has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the
    United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
    Procedure 43(c).
    This court reviews the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider under an abuse-
    of-discretion standard that is more deferential than the ordinary standard for reviewing
    agency decisions. See Esenwah v. Ashcroft, 
    378 F.3d 763
    , 765 (8th Cir. 2004). We
    conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion: Castano did not assert facts or
    arguments beyond those already considered by the BIA; the initial BIA decision
    articulated a rational and supported explanation for denying relief; and there is no
    indication that the BIA departed from established policies, evinced discriminatory
    intent, or distorted Castano’s claims. See Strato v. Ashcroft, 
    388 F.3d 651
    , 655 (8th
    Cir. 2004) (motion to reconsider must give tribunal reason to change its mind; BIA
    does not abuse its discretion by refusing to reconsider arguments already rejected);
    
    Esenwah, 378 F.3d at 765
    (abuse of discretion is found only when BIA’s decision
    lacks rational explanation, ignores relevant factors, departs from established policies,
    invidiously discriminates against particular race or group, or distorts important aspects
    of claim).
    The petition for review is denied.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-3912

Citation Numbers: 326 F. App'x 415

Filed Date: 5/28/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023