Prince Bernard Aggrey v. Attorney General of the United States of America

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-2500
PRINCE BERNARD AGGREY,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent
On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A96-085-118
(Honorable Irma Lopez-DeFillo, Immigration Judge)
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 14, 2005
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, FISHER and ALDISERT Circuit Judges
(Filed December 27, 2005)
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
Prince Bernard Aggrey, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions for review of a
final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). We will
deny the petition.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
I.
Aggrey unlawfully entered in the United States in 2002 and subsequently sought
asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture alleging religious persecution. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found Aggrey
removable as charged. The IJ also denied relief from removal, finding that Aggrey’s
testimony was not credible and that his allegations nonetheless failed to satisfy his burden
of proof. The BIA affirmed without opinion on February 4, 2005. On April 8, 2005, the
BIA denied Aggrey’s motion for reconsideration, finding that Aggrey had failed to
identify any particular errors in their prior decision. Aggrey filed a pro se petition for
review on May 9, 2005.
II.
Aggrey alleges errors in the IJ’s decision, and thereby challenges the BIA’s
February 4 order of affirmance. However, we lack authority to review that orderth
because Aggrey did not file a timely petition for review within 30 days of the order. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). Furthermore, the motion for reconsideration did not toll the
running of the appeal period. Stone v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 514 U.S.
386 (1995).
III.
The petition for review is, however, timely as to the BIA’s April 8 order denyingth
Aggrey’s motion fo reconsideration. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Nocon v. Immigration

-- 2 of 3 --

Petitioners must exhaust all administrative remedies available to them as of right1
before raising a claim before us. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Bonhometre v. Gonzales, 414
F.3d 442, 447 (3d Cir. 2005).
3
& Naturalization Service, 789 F.2d 1028, 1032-33 (3d Cir. 1986). We review the denial
of reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Borges v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 398, 404 (3d
Cir. 2005).
A motion to reconsider must specify the errors of law or fact in the BIA’s prior
decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). As Aggrey failed to identify any such errors, the BIA
did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
Aggrey’s allegations in his brief of a denial of due process and of the right to
counsel were not raised in his motion for reconsideration. To the extent he is alleging
error in the BIA’s review of his motion for reconsideration, we assume without deciding
that we have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims and find them to be without1
merit.
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for review.

-- 3 of 3 --