Wen Bo Lin v. Mukasey

Fourth Circuit

Wen Bo Lin v. Mukasey

267 F. App'x 253

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 28, 2008

Docket07-1375

StatusUnpublished

This text of 267 F. App'x 253 (Wen Bo Lin v. Mukasey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wen Bo Lin v. Mukasey, 267 F. App'x 253 (4th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Wen Bo Lin, 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 the order affirming the immigration judge’s order denying his applications for adjustment of status, asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition for review.

We review the Board’s decision to deny a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2007). A motion for reconsideration asserts that the Board made an error in its earlier decision, Turri v. INS, 997 F.2d 1306, 1311 n. 4 (10th Cir.1993), and requires the movant to specify the error of fact or law in the prior Board decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (2007); Matter of Cerna, 20 I. & N. Dec. 399, 402 (B.I.A.1991) (noting that a motion to reconsider questions a decision for alleged errors in appraising the facts and the law). The burden is on the movant to establish that reconsideration is warrant *254 ed. INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 110-11, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988). “To be 'within a mile of being granted, a motion for reconsideration has to give the tribunal to which it is addressed a reason for changing its mind.” Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir.2004). Motions that simply repeat contentions that have already been rejected are insufficient to convince the Board to reconsider a previous decision. Id.

We find the Board did not abuse its discretion. Lin merely repeated in his motion to reconsider his claim that his wife was forcibly sterilized. He failed to address the adverse credibility finding.

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Wen Bo Lin, 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 the order affirming the immigration judge’s order denying his applications for adjustment of status, asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition for review.

We review the Board’s decision to deny a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2007). A motion for reconsideration asserts that the Board made an error in its earlier decision, Turri v. INS, 997 F.2d 1306, 1311 n. 4 (10th Cir.1993), and requires the movant to specify the error of fact or law in the prior Board decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (2007); Matter of Cerna, 20 I. & N. Dec. 399, 402 (B.I.A.1991) (noting that a motion to reconsider questions a decision for alleged errors in appraising the facts and the law). The burden is on the movant to establish that reconsideration is warrant *254 ed. INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 110-11, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988). “To be 'within a mile of being granted, a motion for reconsideration has to give the tribunal to which it is addressed a reason for changing its mind.” Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir.2004). Motions that simply repeat contentions that have already been rejected are insufficient to convince the Board to reconsider a previous decision. Id.

We find the Board did not abuse its discretion. Lin merely repeated in his motion to reconsider his claim that his wife was forcibly sterilized. He failed to address the adverse credibility finding.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 F. App'x 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wen-bo-lin-v-mukasey-ca4-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack