Zu Qun Lin v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1600
ZU QUN LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: February 17, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kim-Bun Thomas Li, LI LATSEY & GUITERMAN, PLLC, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Arthur L. Rabin,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Zu Qun 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.
We deny the petition for review.
The denial of a motion to reconsider is reviewed 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). A motion to reconsider asserts
the Board made an error in its earlier decision. The movant
must specify the error of fact or law in the Board’s prior
decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). The Board’s broad
exercise of discretion will be reversed only if its decision
“lacked a rational explanation, departed from established
policies, or rested on an impermissible basis.” Jean, 435 F.3d
at 483 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The burden is on the movant to establish that
reconsideration is warranted. INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 110
(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

-- 2 of 4 --

3
contentions that have already been rejected are insufficient to
support reconsideration of a previous decision. Id.
We conclude that the Board did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. To the extent
Lin seeks review of issues that he could have put in his motion
to reconsider but did not, this court lacks jurisdiction. 8
U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631,
638-40 (4th Cir. 2008); see also Kporlor v. Holder, 597 F.3d
222, 228 (4th Cir.) (“The [Board] is entitled to an opportunity
to correct any errors that may occur in immigration proceedings,
and we lack jurisdiction unless it is given the chance to do
so.”), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 503 (2010). In addition, this
court is without jurisdiction to review the Board’s order
dismissing the appeal from the immigration judge’s decision
because Lin did not file a timely petition for review from that
order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2006) (stating that the
petition for review must be filed no later than thirty days
after the date of the final order of removal). It is well-
settled that the subsequent filing with the Board of a motion to
reconsider does not toll the time for filing a petition for
review in the Court of Appeals. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386,
394, 405-06 (1995).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
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

-- 4 of 4 --