Case ID: f-appx_471/html/0048-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Usman ALI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-328-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 31, 2012.
    Amy Nussbaum Gell, Gell & Gell, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Susan K Houser, Senior Litigation Counsel; Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, REENA RAGGI, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Usman Ali, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks review of a December 29, 2010 decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Ali, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Dec. 29, 2010). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

In its decision denying Ali’s motion to reopen, the BIA determined that Ali had not satisfied the regulatory requirements for reopening removal proceedings because he had failed to submit an application for relief with his motion. Ali does not challenge this determination on appeal. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1), “[a] motion to reopen proceedings for the purpose of submitting an application for relief must be accompanied by the appropriate application for relief and all supporting documentation.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (emphasis supplied). “[T]he plain language of § 1008.2(c)(1) makes clear that submission of the appropriate application for relief is mandatory, not permissive.” Weng Sheng Da v. Holder, 363 Fed.Appx. 70, 70 (2d Cir.2010) (summary order). Accordingly, because Ali failed to file an asylum application with his motion to reopen, the BIA’s denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion. Id.; accord Lin Xing Jiang v. Holder, 639 F.3d 751, 757 (7th Cir.2011); Palmar-Mazariegos v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 144, 147 (1st Cir.2007); Waggoner v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 632, 638-39 (5th Cir.2007). As a separate matter, we have considered Ali’s arguments on appeal and conclude that, even had he submitted the required application, his appeal would fail: the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ali’s motion on the merits.

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).