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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 11 th** **day of October, two thousand thirteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 7 **PETER W. HALL,** 8 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **PING LI,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 12-4100** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent**.** 20

**_______________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Peter L. Quan, New York, New York.** 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant** 25 **Attorney General, Civil Division;** 26 **Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant** 27 **Director; Julie M. Wolf, Law Clerk;** 28 **Arthur L. Rabin, Trial Attorney,** 29 **Office of Immigration Litigation,** 30 **United States Department of Justice,** 31 **Washington, D.C.** 32UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review 3 is DENIED. 4 Petitioner Ping Li, a native and citizen of China, 5 seeks review of a September 19, 2012, decision of the BIA 6 denying his motion for reconsideration. In re Ping Li , No. 7 A094 803 025 (B.I.A. Sept. 19, 2012). We assume the 8 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 9 procedural history in this case. 10 We review the denial of a motion for reconsideration 11 for abuse of discretion. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 12 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006); Kaur v. BIA,413 F.3d 232, 233 13 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). A motion to reconsider must 14 “specify the errors of fact or law in the [challenged BIA 15 decision] and [] be supported by pertinent authority.” See 16 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen 17 Zhao v. Mukasey, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2001). 18 As Li timely petitioned for review of only the BIA’s 19 denial of his motion for reconsideration, we are precluded 20 from considering the merits of the underlying removal 21 proceedings. See Jin Ming Liu , 439 F.3d at 111. However, 22 in his brief, Li does not challenge the BIA’s denial of this 23

2motion and, instead, seeks review of the BIA’s earlier 1 decision dismissing his appeal. Li has therefore abandoned 2 any challenge to the denial of the motion for 3 reconsideration, see Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 4 540, 546 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005), the sole issue we have 5 jurisdiction to review. This alone provides a basis for 6 denying the petition for review. 7 In any event, the BIA’s denial of the motion was not an 8 abuse of discretion. In the motion, Li merely reiterated 9 his previous argument that his detention and subsequent 10 questioning established past persecution, but he did not 11 identify any errors of law or fact. “The BIA does not abuse 12 its discretion by denying a motion to reconsider where the 13 motion repeats arguments that the BIA has previously 14 rejected.” Jin Ming Liu , 439 F.3d at 111. 15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 16 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion 17 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 18

19

FOR THE COURT: 20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 21

3