12-4100

Li v. Holder

BIA

A094 803 025

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY 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 Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 11th 4 day of October, two thousand thirteen.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

8 PETER W. HALL,

9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _____________________________________

12

13 PING LI,

14 Petitioner, 

15

16 v. 12-4100

17 NAC 

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent.

21 _______________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Peter L. Quan, New York, New York.

24

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant

26 Attorney General, Civil Division;

27 Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant

28 Director; Julie M. Wolf, Law Clerk;

29 Arthur L. Rabin, Trial Attorney,

30 Office of Immigration Litigation,

31 United States Department of Justice,

32 Washington, D.C.
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 Ping Li, a native and citizen of China,

6 seeks review of a September 19, 2012, decision of the BIA

7 denying his motion for reconsideration. In re Ping Li, No.

8 A094 803 025 (B.I.A. Sept. 19, 2012). We assume the

9 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

10 procedural history in this case.

11 We review the denial of a motion for reconsideration

12 for abuse of discretion. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439

13 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006); Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233

14 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). A motion to reconsider must

15 “specify the errors of fact or law in the [challenged BIA

16 decision] and [] be supported by pertinent authority.” See

17 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen

18 Zhao v. Mukasey, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2001).

19 As Li timely petitioned for review of only the BIA’s

20 denial of his motion for reconsideration, we are precluded

21 from considering the merits of the underlying removal

22 proceedings. See Jin Ming Liu, 439 F.3d at 111. However,

23 in his brief, Li does not challenge the BIA’s denial of this

2
1 motion and, instead, seeks review of the BIA’s earlier

2 decision dismissing his appeal. Li has therefore abandoned

3 any challenge to the denial of the motion for

4 reconsideration, see Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d

5 540, 546 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005), the sole issue we have

6 jurisdiction to review. This alone provides a basis for

7 denying the petition for review. 

8 In any event, the BIA’s denial of the motion was not an

9 abuse of discretion. In the motion, Li merely reiterated

10 his previous argument that his detention and subsequent

11 questioning established past persecution, but he did not

12 identify any errors of law or fact. “The BIA does not abuse

13 its discretion by denying a motion to reconsider where the

14 motion repeats arguments that the BIA has previously

15 rejected.” Jin Ming Liu, 439 F.3d at 111. 

16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

17 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion

18 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.

19

20 FOR THE COURT: 

21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

3