Case Name: Roselle Jimai KILO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-15
Citations: 412 F. App'x 559
Docket Number: No. 10-1452
Parties: Roselle Jimai KILO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 412
Pages: 559–559

Head Matter:
Roselle Jimai KILO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-1452.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 13, 2011.
Decided: Feb. 15, 2011.
Danielle L.C. Beach-Oswald, Beach-Oswald Immigration Law Associates, PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer P. Levings, Senior Litigation Counsel, Julia J. Tyler, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before KEENAN and WYNN, 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Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Roselle Jimai Kilo, a native and citizen of Cameroon, came to the United States on December 23, 2005, as a visitor and overstayed her visa. On July 12, 2007, an Immigration Judge denied her application for asylum or withholding of removal. Kilo subsequently appealed, and that appeal was dismissed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) on June 15, 2009. She now petitions for review of an order of the Board denying her motion to reconsider.
The Board's decision to grant or deny a motion to reconsider is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2010); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir.2006). We have reviewed the administrative record and find no abuse of discretion in the denial of relief on Kilo's motion. To prevail in a motion to reconsider, a petitioner must point to specific errors of law or fact in the Board's decision. See Ogundipe v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 257, 263 (4th Cir.2008). Petitioner's brief alleges no such errors and instead urges a reevaluation of the Board's conclusions. We accordingly deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Kilo (B.I.A. Mar. 22, 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.