09 -40 18 -ag

Yang v. Holder BIA A029 809 073 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 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 20 day of May, two thousand ten. th 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 9 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 10 C ircuit Judges . 11

______________________________________ 12 13 CHI FONG YANG, ALSO KNOWN AS SADAKO 14 KANAZAWA, ALSO KNOWN AS QIFENG YANG, 15 ALSO KNOWN AS CHI FENG YANG, 16 Petitioner , 17 09-4018-ag 18 v. NAC 19 20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 21 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent . 23

______________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Nathaniel K. Hsieh, Chicago, 26 Illinois. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 29 General, Civil Division; Ernesto H. 30 Molina, Jr., Assistant Director, 31 Office of Immigration Litigation; 32 Jeffery R. Leist, Trial Attorney, 33 Office of Immigration Litigation, 34 Civil Division, United States 35 Department of Justice, Washington, 36 D.C. 372 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Chi Fong Yang, a native and citizen of the 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the August 31, 7 2009, order of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In 8 re Chi Fong Yang , No. A029 809 073 (B.I.A. Aug. 31, 2009). 9 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 1 0 and procedural history of the case. 1 1 Our review in this case is limited to the BIA’s August 1 2 2009 denial of Yang’s motion to reconsider, because that is 1 3 the only decision from which he filed a timely petition for 1 4 review. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 265 F.3d 1 5 83, 89-90 (2d Cir. 2001). As the government argues, 1 6 however, Yang waives any challenge to that decision. See 17 Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales , 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 1 8 (2d Cir. 2005). Instead, Yang’s brief is devoted to 1 9 challenging the findings the BIA made in denying his motion 2 0 to reopen, a decision that is not properly before us. See 21 Ke Zhen Zhao , 265 F.3d at 89-90. Because Yang has 2 2 effectively waived any challenge to the decision we are3 1 “empowered to review,” his petition for review must be 2 denied. See Nwogu v. Gonzales , 491 F.3d 80, 84 (2d Cir. 3 2007) (denying petition where applicant failed to raise “any 4 of the issues relevant” to BIA’s denial of his motion to 5 reopen). 6 We note that even if Yang had not waived such 7 arguments, we would conclude that the BIA did not abuse its 8 discretion in denying his motion to reconsider because he 9 merely repeated the same argument that the BIA had 1 0 previously considered and rejected in denying his motion to 1 1 reopen. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales , 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d 1 2 Cir. 2006). 1 3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1 4 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 1 5 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 1 6 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 1 7 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 1 8 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 1 9 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 2 0 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 2 1 FOR THE COURT: 2 2 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 23 24 25