UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2199
DIONISHIAH WANJIRU MWAURA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-093-929)
Submitted: February 23, 2005 Decided: March 16, 2005
Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Oti W. Nwosu, Arthur D. Wright, III, THE WRIGHT LAW NETWORK,
Riverdale, Maryland, for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United
States Attorney, Gerard J. Mene, Assistant United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Dionishiah Wanjiru Mwaura, a native and citizen of Kenya,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reconsider its denial of her
motion to reopen. Mwaura alleges she will be tortured by the
police if she returns to Kenya.
We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reconsider
for an abuse of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004);
Yanez-Popp v. INS, 998 F.2d 231, 234 (4th Cir. 1993). A motion to
reconsider asserts that 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.” INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323
(1992).
Mwaura contends the Board abused its discretion because,
at the very least, it should have found her eligible for protection
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). To qualify for
protection under the CAT, a petitioner bears the burden of
demonstrating that “it is more likely than not that [s]he . . .
- 2 -
would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.”
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004). We have reviewed the record and
conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion when it
determined that Mwaura failed to establish that its denial of her
motion to reopen should be reconsidered.
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 -