Case ID: f-appx_330/html/0212-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JIN DI LU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-0609-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 12, 2009.
    Michael Brown, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel; Charles B. Ford, Law Clerk, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: Hon. JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN, Hon. JOSÉ A. CABRANES and Hon. B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Jin Di Lu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the January 16, 2008 order of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re Jin Di Lu, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Jan. 16, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Where, as here, an alien files a timely petition for review from the denial of a motion to reconsider, but not from the underlying decision for which reconsideration is sought, we may review only the denial of the motion to reconsider. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 88, 89-90 (2d Cir.2001). To the extent that Lu challenges the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider, we find that the BIA reasonably denied his motion where he failed to specify errors of fact or law in its prior decision as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir.2006) (holding that “[t]he BIA does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to reconsider where the motion [merely] repeats arguments that the BIA has previously rejected”).

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(b).