Filed: Jul. 08, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1036 JACOB RANJIT D’CRUZE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted: June 3, 2010 Decided: July 8, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steffanie J. Lewis, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LAW FIRM, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1036 JACOB RANJIT D’CRUZE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted: June 3, 2010 Decided: July 8, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steffanie J. Lewis, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LAW FIRM, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant At..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1036
JACOB RANJIT D’CRUZE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals
Submitted: June 3, 2010 Decided: July 8, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steffanie J. Lewis, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LAW FIRM, P.C.,
Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director, Joanna L.
Watson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jacob Ranjit D’Cruze, a native and citizen of
Bangladesh, petitions for review an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reconsider.
We deny the petition for review.
This court reviews the denial of a motion to
reconsider for abuse of discretion. Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d
741, 744 (4th Cir. 2006); Jean v. Gonzales,
435 F.3d 475, 483
(4th Cir. 2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2010). A motion to
reconsider asserts an error in an earlier decision and requires
the movant to specify the error of fact or law in the prior
decision.
Jean, 435 F.3d at 482-83; Matter of Cerna, 20 I. & N.
Dec. 399, 402 (BIA 1991) (noting that a motion to reconsider
questions a decision for alleged errors in appraising the facts
and the law); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (2010).
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).
We find the Board did not abuse its discretion denying
the motion to reconsider. The Board’s decision in Matter of R-
D-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 221 (BIA 2007) clearly controls D’Cruze’s
2
circumstance. D’Cruze departed the United States when he
entered Canada in contemplation of being granted refugee status
in that country. He remained in Canada several years, was not
detained and was permitted to move about the country. His re-
entry into the United States without being admitted or paroled
made him ineligible for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1255(a), (i) (2006).
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
