
    Yared Assefa ABEBE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-1229.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 26, 2012.
    Decided: Aug. 21, 2012.
    David Garfield, Garfield Law Group, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Kristen Giuffreda Chapman, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Yared Assefa Abebe, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion for reconsideration. We deny the petition for review.

A motion to reconsider must specify the errors of law or fact in the Board’s prior decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (c)(6)(c) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b) (2012). This court reviews the denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir.2009); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir.2006). The court will reverse the Board’s decision only if it is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law. Narine, 559 F.3d at 249. “[A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006).

We conclude there was no abuse of discretion. Abebe failed to raise the factual issues on appeal to the Board, despite specific instructions to do so. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(b) (2012). The Board did not abuse its discretion by finding that Abebe could not use a motion to reconsider to alert the Board to his contentions regarding the immigration judge’s factual findings that supported the adverse credibility finding when he did not raise those arguments on appeal.

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.  