Tchenang Tiani v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-1601 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1601 TCHENANG DANY-LUCIENNE TIANI, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: January 4, 2010 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Neufville, III, MORAISNEUFVILLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jonathan Robbins, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Tchenang Dany-Lucienne Tiani, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for Immigration Appeals review of an order of the Board of ( Board ) denying her motion to reconsider its order dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge s denial of her motion to reopen. We deny the petition for reconsider is review. The Board s denial of a motion to Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d reviewed for abuse of discretion. 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2009). A motion to reconsider asserts the Board made an error in its earlier decision. the The movant must specify the error of fact or law in Board s prior decision. See (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). will be reversed only if its 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6) The Board s broad discretion 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). The burden is on the movant to establish that reconsideration is warranted. U.S. 94, 110-11 (1988). INS v. Abudu, 485 To be within a mile of being granted, a motion for reconsideration has to give the tribunal to which it is addressed a reason for changing its mind. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 2004). Ahmed v. Motions that simply repeat contentions that have already been rejected are 2 insufficient decision. to convince the Board to reconsider a previous Id. We find the Board did not abuse its discretion in finding that there was no error of law in the earlier order. The Board reviewed the record, including Tiani s affidavit, to find she did not make a prima facie showing of either past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution. 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.
