UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1941
RICHARD MANOUANA MILANDOU,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A75-376-839)
Submitted: February 9, 2004 Decided: February 24, 2004
Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Papu Sandhu, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Isaac R. Campbell, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Richard Manouana Milandou, a native and citizen of the
Congo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion for reconsideration and to
reopen the proceedings. We deny the petition for review.
We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen or a
motion to reconsider with extreme deference and only for an abuse
of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2003); INS v. Doherty, 502
U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th
Cir. 1999). Such motions are especially disfavored “in a
deportation proceeding, where, as a general matter, every delay
works to the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to
remain in the United States.” Doherty, 502 U.S. at 323.
“A motion to reopen proceedings shall not be granted
unless it appears to the Board that evidence sought to be offered
is material and was not available and could not have been
discovered or presented at the former hearing.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(1) (2003). A motion to reconsider asserts that the
Board made an error in its earlier decision, Zhao v. United States
Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2001), and requires the
movant to specify the error of fact or law in the Board’s prior
decision and be supported by pertinent authority, 8 C.F.R.
- 2 -
§ 1003.2(b)(1) (2003). We find the Board did not abuse its
discretion.*
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
*
We do not have jurisdiction to review the Board’s order
affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s decision denying
Milandou’s applications for asylum, withholding from removal and
withholding under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(1) (2000); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394, 405 (1995).
- 3 -