10-2294-ag Medic v. Holder BIA A070 582 475 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT** 

## SUMMARY ORDER

**RULINGS BY SU MMARY ORDER DO NOT**  **HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER J**  **ANUARY 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 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan**  **United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 5**  **th day of July, two thousand twelve.** 

**PRESENT:** JON O. NEWMAN, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges **.**

**_________________________________________ DALIBOR MEDIC,**  Petitioner **, v. 10-2294-ag**  **NAC ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL,**  **UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,** Respondent **.**

**_________________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Dalibor Medic,**  Pro Se **, Flushing, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney**  **General; Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director; Kevin J. Conway, Trial**  **Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department**  **of Justice, Washington, D.C.**2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review is DENIED. Dalibor Medic, a native and citizen of Croatia, seeks review of the May 14, 2010, order of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re Dalibor Medic , No. A070 582 475 (B.I.A. May 14, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the

case. As Medic timely petitioned for review of only the BIA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of its earlier denial of his motion to reopen, we are precluded from considering the merits of the underlying motion to reopen and removal proceedings. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales , 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). We have reviewed the denial of Medic’s motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. See id. ; Kaur v. BIA , 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). A motion to reconsider must “specify errors of fact or law in the [challenged BIA decision] and [] be supported by pertinent authority.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen Zhao v. Mukasey , 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2001).3 The BIA does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reconsider when the movant repeats arguments the BIA has already rejected. See Jin Ming Liu , 439 F.3d at 111. Because Medic merely reiterated his previously rejected arguments rather than identifying errors of fact or law in the BIA’s denial of reopening, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration. See id. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk