Case ID: f-appx_308/html/0545-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Amina KHATUN, Petitioner, v. Mark FILIP, Acting United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-5527-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 30, 2009.
    Rodkin, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Katsas, Assistant Attorney General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director; Angela N. Liang, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: Hon. DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, Hon. ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Hon. REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Mark Filip is substituted for Michael B. Mukasey as Respondent.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Amina Khatun, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of the November 30, 2007 order of the BIA denying her motion to reconsider. In re Amina Khatun, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 30, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

Our review in this case is limited to the BIA’s November 2007 denial of Khatun’s motion to reconsider, because that is the only decision from which she filed a timely petition for review. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir.2001). As the government argues, however, Khatun waives any challenge to that decision. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005). Instead, Khatun’s brief is devoted to challenging the findings the BIA made in denying her motion to reopen, a decision that is not properly before us. See Ke Zhen Zhao, 265 F.3d at 89-90. Because Khatun has effectively waived any challenge to the decision we are “empowered to review,” her petition for review must be denied. See Nwogu v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 80, 84 (2d Cir.2007) (denying petition where applicant failed to raise “any of the issues relevant” to BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen).

We note that even if Khatun had not waived such arguments, we would conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to reconsider where she merely repeated the same arguments that the BIA had previously considered and rejected in denying her motion to reopen. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir.2006).

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