Case Name: JI FEN XIAO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-16
Citations: 381 F. App'x 15
Docket Number: No. 08-5445-ag
Parties: JI FEN XIAO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, RICHARD C. WESLEY, and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 381
Pages: 15–16

Head Matter:
JI FEN XIAO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-5445-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 16, 2010.
Nathan Weill, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Michelle Gorden Latour, Assistant Director; Timothy G. Hayes, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, RICHARD C. WESLEY, and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric. H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Ji Fen Xiao, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review of an October 15, 2008, order of the BIA summarily affirming the April 23, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge ("IJ") Javier Balasquide, which denied his motion to reconsider. In re Ji Fen Xiao, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 15, 2008), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 23, 2007). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
As an initial matter, the Xiao only argues that the BIA erred by ignoring his motion to remand, thus waiving all other arguments before this Court. See Yueq-ing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005). We find no abuse of discretion, however, in the BIA's summary affirmance of the IJ's decision. The BIA was under no obligation to consider the documents that Xiao submitted for the first time on appeal. See De La Rosa v. Holder, 598 F.3d 103, 109 (2d Cir.2010) (explaining that when the BIA is presented with new evidence on appeal, it should either "reject the evidence without considering it or move, sua sponte, to reopen the case before the IJ with the additional evidence"); see also Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).