UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1705
MALADO DIALLO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 14, 2009 Decided: February 25, 2009
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney
General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Brianne Whelan
Cohen, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Malado Diallo, a native and citizen of Guinea,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reconsider the denial of
her second motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review.
This court reviews the Board’s denial of Diallo’s
motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Ogundipe v.
Mukasey, 541 F.3d 257, 263 (4th Cir. 2008). A motion for
reconsideration must specify the errors of law or fact in the
previous decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C) (2006); see also 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(2) (2008). The court will reverse the Board’s
decision for abuse of discretion only if it is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law. Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d
741, 745 (4th Cir. 2006). “[A]dministrative findings of fact
are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006).
We find the Board did not abuse its discretion by
denying Diallo’s motion to reconsider. She failed to show any
error of law or fact with respect to the denial of her motion to
reopen. We further find the Board did not abuse its discretion
insofar as it construed Diallo’s motion as her third motion to
2
reopen and denied it because she failed to establish changed
circumstances in Guinea that materially affect her asylum claim.
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