Case ID: f-appx_530/html/0043-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DAI SHIN SUN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-2913.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    July 18, 2013.
    David A. Bredin, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director; Lindsay M. Murphy, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, PIERRE N. LEVAL and JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Dai Shin Sun, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 28, 2012, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re Dai Shin Sun, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 28, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

As the government argues, our review in this case is limited to the BIA’s June 2012 denial of Sun’s motion to reconsider because that is the only decision from which he filed a timely petition for review. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir.2001); see also Luna v. Holder, 637 F.3d 85, 92 (2d Cir.2011) (recognizing that the 30-day filing requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) “is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling” (quotation marks and citation omitted)). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir.2006). The BIA reasonably denied Sun’s motion to reconsider because his additional attempts to explain his demeanor at his merits hearing and an inconsistency in the record of his underlying proceedings failed to specify errors of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). See id. at 111; see also In re Cerna, 20 I. & N. Dec. 399, 402 n. 2 (B.I.A.1991).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).