Case ID: f-appx_119/html/0516-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ying Sheng XIE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-1584.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 19, 2004.
    Decided: Jan. 13, 2005.
    Mark A. Mancini, Wasserman, Maneini & Chang, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Donald E. Keener, Deputy Director, Alison R. Drucker, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Ying Sheng Xie, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) order denying her motion to reconsider.

We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reconsider with extreme deference and only for an abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir.1999). A motion to reconsider asserts the Board made an error in its earlier decision. The motion must “state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Such motions are especially disfavored “in a deportation proceeding, where, as a general matter, every delay works to the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the United States.” Doherty, 502 U.S. at 323, 112 S.Ct. 719.

We lack jurisdiction to address Xie’s arguments that she suffered past persecution for refusing to undergo a forced abortion and for resisting a coercive population control program because they were not raised in her motion to reconsider. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000); Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n. 3 (4th Cir.2004). For the same reason, we lack jurisdiction to review Xie’s argument that she has a well founded fear of being sterilized because she violated an agreement saying she would not have any more children.

With respect to Xie’s argument that she was forced to abort a pregnancy, we conclude the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Xie’s claim because she did not experience any actual harm. Finally, we conclude the Board did not abuse its discretion when it denied Xie’s argument that she would be forced to have an abortion if she became pregnant again. The purpose of a motion to reconsider is to point out errors of law or fact, but Xie’s argument was a new legal challenge not asserted in her initial appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

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