Case ID: f-appx_612/html/0680-01.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

Atul SHARMA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-2042.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 7, 2015.
    Decided: Aug. 18, 2015.
    Mark A. Mancini, Wasserman, Mancini & Chang, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Kristen Giuffreda Chapman, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Atul Sharma, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, denying his motion to reconsider. We deny the petition for review.

A motion to reconsider must specify the errors of law or fact in the Board’s prior decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C) (2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b) (2015). We review the denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion and will reverse the Board’s decision only if it is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law. Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir.2009).

We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in finding Sharma did not show there was an error of law or fact in the prior decision and denying the motion to reconsider. 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.