Case Name: Khandakar Arzu MOMEN, 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: 2012-08-02
Citations: 473 F. App'x 97
Docket Number: No. 11-1810-ag
Parties: Khandakar Arzu MOMEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 97–98

Head Matter:
Khandakar Arzu MOMEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-1810-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Aug. 2, 2012.
Alexander Arandia, Arandia & Arandia, Forest Hills, N.Y., for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel; Susan Houser, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., ROBERT A. KATZMANN and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Khandakar Arzu Momen, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of an April 19, 2011 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his proceedings. In re Khandakar Arzu Momen, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. April 19, 2011). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case. We review the agency's denial of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006).
The BIA denied Momen's motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA issued its final order of removal, and because Momen did not identify any ground that would excuse the motion from the 90-day statutory filing deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (providing that motions to reopen "shall be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal"); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) (setting forth certain exceptions to the 90 day time limit for filing a motion to reopen). Momen does not now contend that his motion to reopen was timely or that it falls within any recognized exception to the statutory timeliness requirement.
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.