Case ID: f-appx_479/html/0389-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dalibor MEDIC, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Respondent.
    No. 10-2294-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    July 5, 2012.
    Dalibor Medic, Pro Se, Flushing, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director; Kevin J. Conway, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Present: JON O. NEWMAN, ROSEMARY S. POOLER and DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review is DENIED.

Dalibor Medic, a native and citizen of Croatia, seeks review of the May 14, 2010, order of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re Dalibor Medic, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. May 14, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

As Medic timely petitioned for review of only the BIA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of its earlier denial of his motion to reopen, we are precluded from considering the merits of the underlying motion to reopen and removal proceedings. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir.2006). We have reviewed the denial of Medic’s motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. See id.; Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam). A motion to reconsider must “specify errors of fact or law in the [challenged BIA decision] and [] be supported by pertinent authority.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (c)(6); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir.2001).

The BIA does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reconsider when the movant repeats arguments the BIA has already rejected. See Jin Ming Liu, 439 F.3d at 111. Because Medic merely reiterated his previously rejected arguments rather than identifying errors of fact or law in the BIA’s denial of reopening, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration. See id.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.