Case Name: Fatoumata TOURE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-18
Citations: 417 F. App'x 345
Docket Number: No. 10-1685
Parties: Fatoumata TOURE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 417
Pages: 345–345

Head Matter:
Fatoumata TOURE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-1685.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 28, 2011.
Decided: March 18, 2011.
Randall L. Johnson, Johnson & Associates, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Ada E. Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Matthew A. Spurlock, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Fatoumata Toure, a native and citizen of the Ivory Coast, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reconsider. We review the denial of a motion to reconsider 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). To succeed on a motion to reconsider, the movant must specify an error of fact or law in the Board's prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (2010).
We have reviewed the administrative record and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Toure's motion to reconsider. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Toure, (B.I.A. May 21, 2010). 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.