
    Samson TEKLEWOLD, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-1270.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 26, 2005.
    Decided Sept. 20, 2005.
    Thomas Hailu, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Debra J. Prillaman, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Respondent.
    Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Samson Teklewold, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of a motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review.

We review the denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2005). A motion to reconsider asserts the Board made an error in its earlier decision. The immigration regulations provide that a motion to reconsider must “state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (2005); see also Zhao v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90-91 (2d Cir.2001) (discussing requirements for motion to reconsider). 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).

We find the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. Accordingly, while we grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 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  