Roselle Kilo v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 10-1452 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1452 ROSELLE JIMAI KILO, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: February 15, 2011 Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 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. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 reconsider is reviewed for abuse of discretion. a motion to 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. Ogundipe v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 257, 263 (4th Cir. See 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 2 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.