
    Albert Edeze BIKIM, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-2190.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 30, 2008.
    Decided: Sept. 23, 2008.
    
      Ronald D. Richey, Law Offices of Ronald D. Richey, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel, T. Bo Stanton, Trial Attorney, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Albert Edeze Bikim, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review.

We review the Board’s decision to deny a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2008). A motion for reconsideration asserts that the Board made an error in its earlier decision, Turri v. INS, 997 F.2d 1306, 1311 n. 4 (10th Cir.1993), and requires the movant to specify the error of fact or law in the prior Board decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (2008); Matter of Cerna, 20 I. & N. Dec. 399, 402 (B.I.A.1991) (noting that a motion to reconsider questions a decision for alleged errors in appraising the facts and the law). The burden is on the movant to establish that reconsideration is warranted. INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 110, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988). “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.” Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir.2004). Motions that simply repeat contentions that have already been rejected are insufficient to convince the Board to reconsider a previous decision. Id.

We find the Board did not abuse its discretion. The Board adequately considered and rejected the arguments Bikim raised in his motion to reconsider. Bikim failed to provide evidence showing that the alleged newly discovered evidence, such as his political party membership cards, could not have been presented earlier. We note we do not have jurisdiction to consider the Board’s denial of Bikim’s motion to reopen because he failed to file a timely petition for review from that order. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394, 405,115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995).

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.  