Colombian citizen Jose Castaño petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reconsider. We deny his petition.

This court reviews the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider under an abuse-of-discretion standard that is more deferential than the ordinary standard for reviewing agency decisions. See Esenwah v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 763, 765 (8th Cir. 2004). We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion: Castaño did not assert facts or arguments beyond those already considered by the BIA; the initial BIA decision articulated a rational and supported explanation for denying relief; and there is no indication that the BIA departed from established policies, evinced discriminatory intent, or distorted Castano’s claims. See Strato v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 651, 655 (8th Cir. 2004) (motion to reconsider must give tribunal reason to change its mind; BIA *416 does not abuse its discretion by refusing to reconsider arguments already rejected); Esenwah, 378 F.3d at 765 (abuse of discretion is found only when BIA’s decision lacks rational explanation, ignores relevant factors, departs from established policies, invidiously discriminates against particular race or group, or distorts important aspects of claim).

The petition for review is denied.