Opinion ID: 169469
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: M otion to Reconsider 4

Text: “A motion to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by 3 Petitioner also appears to contend that the modified categorical approach allowed the BIA to “delve into the legitimacy of the restitution order for purposes of aggravated felony analysis.” Pet. Br. at 3(b). W e have already rejected petitioner’s argument that he could collaterally challenge the validity of the restitution order in the removal proceedings. W hile the modified categorical approach permits the BIA to examine the record of conviction, it does not allow the BIA to assess the validity of the conviction. 4 M r. Rivera-Bottzeck filed an objection to the administrative record, which mistakenly characterized his motion to reconsider as a motion to reopen. The government conceded the error. W e take judicial notice that petitioner’s January 27, 2006, filing was a motion to reconsider. -12- pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). In his motion to reconsider, M r. Rivera-Bottzeck repeated the contentions he had made in his appeal to the BIA regarding an absence of loss to his victims. He cited only one case–a decision from outside this circuit which is no longer good law. He also attached three exhibits, two of w hich were already in the record. The third exhibit is a transcript of the hearing during which he entered his guilty plea. The BIA found that the transcript was not new or previously unavailable evidence, and therefore declined to consider it. It also stated that it could not look behind petitioner’s conviction to determine the legality of the restitution order, directing him to address his arguments to the state court. It explained that the statutory requirement of loss to the victims in § 1101(a)(43)(M )(i) need not be an element of the offense of conviction. Finally, the BIA reiterated that the IJ properly relied on the amount of restitution in finding loss to the victims in excess of $10,000. Petitioner’s arguments on appeal with respect to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider are no different than his arguments in support of reversal of the BIA’s underlying decision. W e have already addressed the merits of these arguments. W e hold that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying M r. Rivera-Bottzeck’s motion to reconsider.