Case ID: f-appx_442/html/0605-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Vitor PUKRI aka Viktor Pukri, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-2459-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 3, 2011.
    Saul C. Brown, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney, General; Lyle D. Jentzer, Senior, Litigation Counsel; Glen T. Jaeger, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Vitor Pukri, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of a May 24, 2010, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Pukri, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. May 24, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the ease.

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). In denying Pukri’s motion, the BIA cited his failure to submit an asylum application with his motion as required under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Pukri fails to challenge this ruling, which is dispositive. See LNC Invs., Inc. v. Nat’l Westminster Bank, N.J., 308 F.3d 169, 176 n. 8 (2d Cir.2002) (“While we no doubt have the power to address an argument despite its abandonment on appeal, we ordinarily will not do so ‘unless manifest injustice otherwise would result.’ ” (quoting Anderson v. Branen, 27 F.3d 29, 30 (2d Cir.1994))).

Moreover, “[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). The BIA’s position is that failure to comply with the requirement is a ground for denial of the motion. Since the plain language of the regulation supports that position, we defer to it. See Zhen Nan Lin v. Dep’t of Justice, 459 F.3d 255, 262 (2d Cir.2006). Other circuit courts have reached the same conclusion in published opinions. See Lin Xing Jiang v. Holder, 639 F.3d 751, 757 (7th Cir.2011); Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1064 (9th Cir.2008); Waggoner v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 632, 638-39 (5th Cir.2007); Palma-Mazariegos v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 144, 147 (1st Cir.2007).

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).