09-1237-ag

Islam v. Holder

BIA

A076 026 583

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS

FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1

AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A

LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST

ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION:

“(SUMMARY ORDER).” A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER

TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED

BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS

PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT

HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE

ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE

DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

4 New York, on the 8 day of December, two thousand nine. th

5

6 PRESENT:

7 DENNIS JACOBS,

8 Chief Judge,

9 JON O. NEWMAN,

10 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,

11 Circuit Judges.

12 _________________________________________

13

14 MOHAMMED HABIBUL ISLAM,

15 Petitioner, 

16

17 v. 09-1237-ag

18 NAC

19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

21 OF JUSTICE,

22 Respondent.

23 _________________________________________

24 

25 FOR PETITIONER: Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, New

26 York.
2

1 FOR RESPONDENTS: Tony West, Assistant Attorney

2 General; Keith I. McManus, Senior

3 Litigation Counsel; Timothy G.

4 Hayes, Trial Attorney, Office of

5 Immigration Litigation, United

6 States Department of Justice,

7 Washington, D.C.

8

9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review

12 is DENIED.

13 Petitioner Mohammed Habibul Islam, a native and citizen

14 of Bangladesh, seeks review of the February 27, 2009 order

15 of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re Mohammed

16 Habibul Islam, No. A076 026 583 (B.I.A. Feb. 27, 2009). We

17 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts

18 and procedural history of the case.

19 When, as here, an alien files a timely petition for

20 review from the denial of a motion to reconsider, but not

21 from the underlying decision for which reconsideration is

22 sought, we may review only the denial of the motion to

23 reconsider. Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d

24 83, 89-90 (2d Cir. 2001). Thus, to the extent Islam

25 challenges the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen, we are

26 without jurisdiction to consider his arguments. To the
3

1 extent Islam challenges the denial of his motion to

2 reconsider, we find that the BIA reasonably denied that

3 motion because he failed to specify errors of fact or law in

4 its prior decision as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). 

5 See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir.

6 2006) (per curiam) (holding that “[t]he BIA does not abuse

7 its discretion by denying a motion to reconsider where the

8 motion [merely] repeats arguments that the BIA has

9 previously rejected.”).

10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

11 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

12 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

13 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

14 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

15 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

16 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second

17 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).

18 FOR THE COURT: 

19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

20

21

22 By:___________________________