Case Name: Eytan IZYAGUYEV, a.k.a. Eytan Isiaguev, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-24
Citations: 432 F. App'x 849
Docket Number: No. 10-13754
Parties: Eytan IZYAGUYEV, a.k.a. Eytan Isiaguev, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 432
Pages: 849–850

Head Matter:
Eytan IZYAGUYEV, a.k.a. Eytan Isiaguev, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
No. 10-13754
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
June 24, 2011.
Charles H. Kuck, Kuck Immigration Partners, LLC, Atlanta, GA, for Petitioner.
Laura H. Hickein, Katherine Smith, David Bernal, Krystal Samuels, USDOJ, Office of Immigration Litigation, Eric Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, DHS Chief Counsel, Atlanta, GA, for Respondent.
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Eytan Izyaguyev petitions for review of the Bureau of Immigration Appeals's ("BIA") denial of his motion to reconsider its summary affirmance of the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings, in which the IJ ordered Izyaguyev's removal in absentia.
We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reconsider for an abuse of discretion. Calle v. U.S. Att'y Gen. 504 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir.2007). A motion to reconsider "shall specify the errors of law or fact in the previous order and shall be supported by pertinent authority." INA § 240(c)(6)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). A motion to reconsider that merely reiterates arguments previously presented to the BIA does not specify errors of facts or law as required for a successful motion to reconsider. Calle, 504 F.3d at 1329. Here, the BIA properly found that the motion for reconsideration reiterated Izyaguyev's previous arguments and failed to point out an error of law or fact with respect to the BIA's summary affirmance of the IJ's denial of his motion to reopen. Accordingly, we deny Izyaguyev's petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.
. Although the government argues on appeal that there is no judicially manageable standard for reviewing the BIA's denial of the motion to reconsider, our case law provides that such motions are reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Accordingly, as stated in our March 2, 2011, order, we have jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of Izyaguyev's motion to reconsider.