Eunice Arhin, a/k/a Eunice Akua Ahrin v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1783
EUNICE ARHIN, a/k/a Eunice Akua Ahrin,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: April 11, 2011 Decided: April 20, 2011
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Jay S. Marks, MARKS, CALDERON, DERWIN & RACINE, PLC, Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General,
David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Liza S. Murcia, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Eunice Arhin, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board) denying her motion to reconsider. We review the denial
of motions to reconsider for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(a) (2010); Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th
Cir. 2009); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006).
To succeed on a motion to reconsider, the movant must specify an
error of fact or law in the Board’s prior decision. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (2010).
We have reviewed the administrative record and Arhin’s
contentions and conclude that the Board did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. Accordingly, we
deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by
the Board. See In re: Arhin (B.I.A. June 17, 2010). To the
extent that Arhin challenges the Board’s orders of July 15,
2008, and February 11, 2009, we note that she failed to file
timely petitions for review of those orders. We therefore
dismiss the petition for review in part with respect to those
claims. Finally, we dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --