He v. Holder

Bd. did not err in denying alien’s motion to reconsider its denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal based on alien’s alleged fear of future persecution if forced to return to China, where alien was practicing Christian. Motion to reconsider was frivolous because it failed to identify any error of fact or law in underlying denial of asylum/withholding of removal request. Moreover, alien failed to raise any issue regarding denial of motion to reconsider in instant petition for review, and instead improperly focused on denial of underlying applications, which, for timeliness reasons, was outside jurisdiction for court to resolve.