Case Name: Clara Maria de los Angeles Segura SILVA, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-28
Citations: 194 F. App'x 711
Docket Number: No. 05-17059
Parties: Clara Maria de los Angeles Segura SILVA, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 194
Pages: 711–711

Head Matter:
Clara Maria de los Angeles Segura SILVA, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
No. 05-17059
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Aug. 28, 2006.
Maria De Los Angeles Torres, Miami, FL, for Petitioner.
David V. Bernal, Office of Immigration Litigation, Andrew C. MacLachlan, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In this case, an Immigration Judge ("IJ") ordered Clara Maria Segura Silva, a native and citizen of Columbia, S.A., removed from the United States to Columbia, and the Board of Immigration ("BIA") affirmed the IJ's decision. Silva thereafter moved the BIA to reconsider its decision. The BIA denied her motion. Silva now petitions this court to review the BIA's denial of her motion to reconsider. She contends that the BIA erred in denying her motion to reconsider because it did not exercise independent judgment.
We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reconsider for an abuse of discretion. Assa'ad v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 332 F.3d 1321, 1341 (11th Cir.2003). "Judicial review of denials of discretionary relief incident to deportation proceedings . is limited to determining 'whether there has been an exercise of administrative discretion and whether the matter of exercise has been arbitrary or capricious.' " See Garcia-Mir v. Smith, 766 F.2d 1478, 1490 (11th Cir.1985) (citation omitted) (addressing a motion to reopen).
"A motion to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior [BIA] decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority." 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). In this case, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Silva's motion to reconsider because Silva failed to specify any errors of law or fact in the BIA's decision and merely reiterated the arguments she presented in appealing the IJ's removal order. Accordingly, we deny her petition.
PETITION DENIED.
. Silva also contends that the IJ erred in finding that she did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.