UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1941

RICHARD MANOUANA MILANDOU,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A75-376-839)

Submitted: February 9, 2004 Decided: February 24, 2004

Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Papu Sandhu, Senior Litigation Counsel, Isaac R. Campbell, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Richard Manouana Milandou, a native and citizen of the

Congo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion for reconsideration and to

reopen the proceedings. We deny the petition for review.

We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen or a

motion to reconsider with extreme deference and only for an abuse

of discretion.

(a) (2003); INS v. Doherty,

(1992); Stewart v. INS,

(4th

Cir. 1999). Such motions are especially disfavored “in a

deportation proceeding, where, as a general matter, every delay

works to the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to

remain in the United States.” Doherty,

.

“A motion to reopen proceedings shall not be granted

unless it appears to the Board that evidence sought to be offered

is material and was not available and could not have been

discovered or presented at the former hearing.”

(c)(1) (2003). A motion to reconsider asserts that the

Board made an error in its earlier decision, Zhao v. United States

Dep’t of Justice,

, 90 (2d Cir. 2001), and requires the

movant to specify the error of fact or law in the Board’s prior

decision and be supported by pertinent authority, 8 C.F.R.

- 2 - § 1003.2(b)(1) (2003). We find the Board did not abuse its

discretion.*

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

* We do not have jurisdiction to review the Board’s order affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s decision denying Milandou’s applications for asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture. See

(b)(1) (2000); Stone v. INS,

(1995).

- 3 -