UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2375
SEBLE HAILE YEMANE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-546-583)
Submitted: April 11, 2005 Decided: April 25, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Seble Haile Yemane, Petitioner Pro Se. George William Maugans,
III, Special Assistant United States Attorney, IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Baltimore, Maryland, Carol Federighi, Wanda
Evans, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Seble Haile Yemane, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
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.
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).
We have reviewed the administrative record and the
Board’s decision and conclude the Board did not abuse its
discretion when it found that Yemane failed to establish that the
documents she submitted with her motion to reopen were material and
previously unavailable. Accordingly, we deny the petition for
review.
- 2 -
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 -