Case Name: Nigel Alophues WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, et al., Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-03
Citations: 339 F. App'x 73
Docket Number: No. 08-1168-ag
Parties: Nigel Alophues WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, et al., Respondents.
Judges: PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, and DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 339
Pages: 73–74

Head Matter:
Nigel Alophues WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, et al., Respondents.
No. 08-1168-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Aug. 3, 2009.
Ransford B. McKenzie, Brooklyn, NY, for Petitioner.
Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Barry J. Pettinato, Assistant Director; Tim Ramnitz, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, and DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 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 a respondent in this case.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Nigel Williams, a native and citizen of Guyana, seeks review of a Febru ary 20, 2008 order of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re Nigel Alophues Williams, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 20, 2008). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
As Williams timely petitioned for review of only the BIA's denial of his motion for reconsideration of its earlier decision confirming his removability, our review is limited to that denial and we are precluded from considering the merits of the underlying removal proceedings. Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir.2006); Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005). We review the denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Jin Ming Liu, 439 F.3d at 111. A motion to reconsider must specify errors of fact or law in the challenged BIA decision and be supported by pertinent authority. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 173 (2d Cir.2008).
The BIA does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reconsider where the movant merely repeats arguments the BIA has already rejected. See Jin Ming Liu, 439 F.3d at 111. Here, Williams identified no errors of fact or law in the underlying agency decision, but rather rehashed arguments that he had already presented to the BIA on appeal, and the BIA thus did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion. 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.