
    Joseph MOUTCHE, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Respondents.
    No. 04-1703.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 15, 2004.
    Decided: Jan. 14, 2005.
    Ronald D. Richey, Law Office of Ronald D. Richey, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner.
    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, Jason S. Patil, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent Ashcroft.
    Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Joseph Moutche, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider its denial of his motion to reopen.

We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reconsider with extreme deference and only for an abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992). A motion to reconsider asserts the Board made an error in its earlier decision. The motion 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). 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, 502 U.S. at 323, 112 S.Ct. 719.

Moutche contends his former counsel told him he did not have to attend his removal hearing. However, Moutche has failed to submit any evidence establishing this fact. We accordingly cannot find that the Board abused its discretion.

We therefore 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  