discretion, and whether the manner in which it was exercised was arbitrary or capricious. Abdi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 430 F.3d 1148, 1149 (11th Cir.2005). After the BIA has affirmed an IJ’s order of removal, the alien may seek reconsideration on the ground that the BIA has made a legal or factual error. INA § 240(c)(6); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). A motion to reconsider shall “specify the errors of fact or law in the previous order and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” INA § 240(c)(6)(C); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C). “A motion to reconsider based on a legal argument that could have been raised earlier in the proceedings will be denied.” Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006); see also Calle v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Citing to Marin, we have noted that “the
holding that a motion to reconsider is not a second opportunity for the losing party to make its strongest case to rehash arguments or to dress up arguments that previously failed holding that merely reiterating arguments previously presented to the bia does not constitute specifying errors of fact or law as required for a successful motion to reconsider alteration omitted holding that the timely filing of a motion to reopen or reconsider with the bia does not toll the time period for seeking appellate court review and that the mere act of filing the motion does not render nonfinal the underlying bia decision holding that the bia does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to reconsider where the motion merely repeats arguments that the bia has previously rejected holding that the bia does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to reconsider when the motion merely repeats arguments that the bia has previously rejected