Case Name: JIN JIANG, 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: 2009-06-05
Citations: 326 F. App'x 57
Docket Number: No. 08-5093-ag
Parties: JIN JIANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: Hon. JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Hon. ROBERT D. SACK and Hon. B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 326
Pages: 57–57

Head Matter:
JIN JIANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-5093-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 5, 2009.
Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General; William C. Peachey, Assistant Director; Eric W. Marsteller, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: Hon. JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Hon. ROBERT D. SACK and Hon. B.D. PARKER, 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
Petitioner Jin Jiang, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review of a September 23, 2008 order of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. In re Jin Jiang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Sept. 23, 2008). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.
The government correctly argues that Jiang has foregone any challenge to the BIA's inasmuch as she failed to submit previously unavailable material evidence in support of her motion to reopen. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005). 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). Because a failure to proffer previously unavailable evidence is a proper ground on which the BIA may deny a motion to reopen, Jiang's failure to challenge the BIA's finding that she failed to submit such evidence is dispositive of this case. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94,104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. Having completed our review, we DISMISS the petitioner's pending motion for a stay of removal as moot.