
    WEN BO LIN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-1375.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 12, 2007.
    Decided: Feb. 28, 2008.
    Yee Ling Poon, Law Offices of Yee Ling Poon, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Joshua E. Braunstein, Senior Litigation Counsel, Stacey I. Young, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Wen Bo Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reconsider the order affirming the immigration judge’s order denying his applications for adjustment of status, asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture. 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) (2007). 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) (2007); 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, 110-11, 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. Lin merely repeated in his motion to reconsider his claim that his wife was forcibly sterilized. He failed to address the adverse credibility finding.

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.  