Case ID: f-appx_365/html/0318-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FENG QING CHEN, also known as Leng Leng Tang, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-0047-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 16, 2010.
    James Costo, New York, New York, for Petitioners.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director; Thankful T. Vanderstar, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: RALPH K WINTER, GUIDO CALABRESI, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Feng Qing Chen seeks review of the December 9, 2008 order of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. In re Feng Qing Chen a.k.a. Leng Leng Tang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Dec. 9, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam). As an initial matter, to the extent that Chen attempts to challenge the BIA’s October 2002 order dismissing her appeal or its February 2003 order denying her first motion to reopen, those orders are not properly before this Court and we dismiss the petition for review to that extent. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir.2001).

Only the BIA’s December 2008 order denying Chen’s second motion to reopen is properly before us, as that is the only decision from which she filed a timely petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). However, Chen has waived any challenge to the agency’s denial of her second motion to reopen by failing to sufficiently argue this issue in her brief. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 542 n. 1, 546 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005). Instead, she devotes only a single conclusory sentence to that order in the argument section of her brief, which does not suffice as a challenge to the BIA’s order.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. 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).