UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1270
SAMSON TEKLEWOLD,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-527-431)
Submitted: August 26, 2005 Decided: September 20, 2005
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Hailu, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Paul J.
McNulty, United States Attorney, Debra J. Prillaman, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Samson Teklewold, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”)
order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of a motion to
reopen. We deny the petition for review.
We review the denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse
of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2005). A motion to
reconsider asserts the Board made an error in its earlier decision.
The immigration regulations provide that a motion to reconsider
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) (2005); see also
Zhao v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90-91 (2d Cir.
2001) (discussing requirements for motion to reconsider). The
burden is on the movant to establish that reconsideration is
warranted. INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 110 (1988).
We find the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying
the motion to reconsider. Accordingly, while we grant the motion
to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
- 2 -