UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2425
WEN CAI MU,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A-77-354-658)
Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: May 18, 2005
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle E. Gorden, OFFICE OF
IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C.; David W. Harder, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Denver, Colorado, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Wen Cai Mu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic
of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider its
denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. Mu contends that
his motion to reconsider provided the Board with new legal
arguments. See Matter of Cerna, 20 I. & N. Dec. 399, 405 n.2 (BIA
1991) (“A motion to reconsider ‘is a request that the Board
reexamine its decision in light of additional legal arguments, a
change of law, or perhaps an argument or aspect of the case which
was overlooked, while [a] motion to reopen is usually based upon
new evidence or a change in factual circumstances.’").
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
- 2 -
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 denied Mu’s motion to reconsider. 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 -