Malado Diallo v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 08-1705 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1705 MALADO DIALLO, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: January 14, 2009 Decided: February 25, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Brianne Whelan Cohen, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Malado Diallo, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) denying her motion to reconsider the denial of her second motion to reopen. This court We deny the petition for review. reviews the Board s denial motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 257, 263 (4th Cir. of Diallo s See Ogundipe v. 2008). A motion for reconsideration must specify the errors of law or fact in the previous decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C) § 1003.23(b)(2) decision for (2008). abuse The of (2006); court discretion capricious, or contrary to law. 741, 745 (4th Cir. 2006). are conclusive compelled to unless will only also reverse if it 8 C.F.R. the Board s is arbitrary, Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d [A]dministrative findings of fact any conclude see reasonable to the adjudicator contrary. would 8 be U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). We find the Board did not denying Diallo s motion to reconsider. abuse its discretion by She failed to show any error of law or fact with respect to the denial of her motion to reopen. We further find the Board did not abuse its discretion insofar as it construed Diallo s motion as her third motion to 2 reopen and denied it because she failed to establish changed circumstances in Guinea that materially affect her asylum claim. 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.
