Case ID: f-appx_324/html/0016-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Afrime SULA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-0640-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 22, 2008.
    Linda L. Foster, Fresh Meadows, NY, for Petitioner.
    Jeffrey Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Michelle G. Latour, Assistant Director; Sunah Lee, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
    PRESENT: Hon. ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Hon. RICHARD C. WESLEY, and Hon. PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. is automatically substituted as the respondent in this case.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Afrime Sulia, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of a January 12, 2006 order of the BIA denying her motion to reopen and reconsider. In re Sula, Afirme, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Jan. 12, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Sula’s brief raises challenges to the agency’s underlying denial of relief. However, where, as here, a petitioner did not timely a file a petition for review of the BIA’s order affirming the denial of asylum and withholding of removal, “we are constrained to review only the denial of [the petitioner’s motion to reopen or reconsider] and are precluded from reviewing the merits of [the petitioner’s] underlying claim for relief.” Chhetry v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 490 F.3d 196, 199 (2d Cir.2007) (per curiam). Sula does not identify any issues relevant to the January 12, 2006 order of the BIA denying her motion to reopen and reconsider. We must therefore treat her challenge to that order — the only one which we are empowered to review — as waived, and must therefore deny her petition for review. See Nwogu v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 80, 84 (2d Cir.2007).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.