UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1584
YING SHENG XIE,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A76-641-160)
Submitted: November 19, 2004 Decided: January 13, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark A. Mancini, WASSERMAN, MANCINI & CHANG, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Donald
E. Keener, Deputy Director, Alison R. Drucker, Senior Litigation
Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ying Sheng Xie, a native and citizen of China, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) order
denying her motion to reconsider.
We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reconsider
with extreme deference and only for an abuse of discretion. 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24
(1992); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999). A
motion to reconsider asserts the Board made an error in its earlier
decision. The motion must “state the reasons for the motion by
specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision
and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(b)(1). 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.
We lack jurisdiction to address Xie’s arguments that she
suffered past persecution for refusing to undergo a forced abortion
and for resisting a coercive population control program because
they were not raised in her motion to reconsider. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1) (2000); Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th
Cir. 2004). For the same reason, we lack jurisdiction to review
Xie’s argument that she has a well founded fear of being sterilized
- 2 -
because she violated an agreement saying she would not have any
more children.
With respect to Xie’s argument that she was forced to
abort a pregnancy, we conclude the Board did not abuse its
discretion in denying Xie’s claim because she did not experience
any actual harm. Finally, we conclude the Board did not abuse its
discretion when it denied Xie’s argument that she would be forced
to have an abortion if she became pregnant again. The purpose of
a motion to reconsider is to point out errors of law or fact, but
Xie’s argument was a new legal challenge not asserted in her
initial appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
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 -