Case ID: f-appx_407/html/0563-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WEN LU XU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-5357-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 31, 2011.
    Michael Brown, New York, NY, for Petitioners.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director; Karen L. Melnik, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, REENA RAGGI, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Wen Lu Xu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 8, 2009, order of the BIA, denying his motion to reconsider. In re Wen Lu Xu, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Dec. 8, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir.2006). The agency’s regulations provide that a motion to reconsider must specify errors of fact or law in the challenged BIA decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir.2001).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Xu’s motion to reconsider because he failed to identify errors of fact or law in the agency’s denial of his motion to reopen as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). As the BIA found, it was entitled to rely on the underlying adverse credibility determination to disregard the documentary evidence Xu submitted with his prior motion to reopen. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 147 (2d Cir.2007) (holding that the BIA may decline to credit documentary evidence submitted with a motion to reopen by an alien who was found not credible in the underlying proceeding).

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.