Case ID: f-appx_355/html/0506-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mohammed Habibul ISLAM, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Respondent.
    No. 09-1237-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 8, 2009.
    Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Keith I. McManus, Senior Litigation Counsel; Timothy G. Hayes, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
    
      PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, and JON O. NEWMAN, and DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Mohammed Habibul Islam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of the February 27, 2009 order of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re Mohammed Habibul Islam, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 27, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

When, 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. Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir.2001). Thus, to the extent Islam challenges the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen, we are without jurisdiction to consider his arguments. To the extent Islam challenges the denial of his motion to reconsider, we find that the BIA reasonably denied that motion because 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) (per curiam) (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).