Gopal Pyakurel v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 08-2397 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2397 GOPAL PYAKUREL; LEKH KUMARI PYAKUREL, Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: July 16, 2009 Decided: August 19, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Khaghendra Gharti-Chhetry, CHHETRY & ASSOCIATES, P.C., New York, New York, for Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director, Anthony P. Nicastro, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gopal Pyakurel and his wife, Lekh Kumari Pyakurel, petition for review an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) denying their motion to reopen and reconsider. We deny the petition for review. This court reviews the Board s denial of a motion to reopen and reconsider with extreme deference and only for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2009); Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir. 2006); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999). The Board s broad discretion will be reversed only if its decision lacked a rational explanation, departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis. Jean, 435 F.3d at 483 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A motion for reconsideration asserts that the Board made an error in its earlier decision, Jean, 435 F.3d at 482-83, and requires the movant to specify that error. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (2009); In re Cerna, 20 I. & N. Dec. 399, 402 (B.I.A. 1991) (noting that a motion to reconsider questions a decision law). for alleged errors in appraising the facts and the To be within a mile of being granted, a motion for reconsideration has to give the tribunal addressed a reason for changing its mind. 2 to which it is Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 2004). Motions that simply repeat contentions that have already been rejected are insufficient to convince the Board to reconsider a previous decision. Id. This court will reverse the Board s denial of a motion to reopen only if contrary to law. the denial is arbitrary, capricious, or Barry, 445 F.3d at 745. We find no abuse of discretion with the Board s denial of the Petitioners motion. They failed to note any error of law or fact with the earlier decision and they failed to provide evidence that addressed the issues raised in the immigration judge s order denying relief. Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because the for facts review. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
