Case Name: Nohemi CORTEZ-AREVALO, 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: 2012-05-29
Citations: 470 F. App'x 56
Docket Number: No. 11-2253-ag
Parties: Nohemi CORTEZ-AREVALO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 470
Pages: 56–57

Head Matter:
Nohemi CORTEZ-AREVALO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-2253-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 29, 2012.
H. Raymond Fasano, Youman, Madeo & Fasano, LLP, New York, NY, for petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney, General; Nancy Friedman, Senior Litigation Counsel; Sharon M. Clay, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. for respondent.
PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Nohemi Cortez-Arevalo ("Cortez"), a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a May 5, 2011, decision of the BIA denying her motion to reconsider and/or reopen her removal proceedings. In re Nohemi Cortez-Arevalo, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. May 5, 2011). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.
The sole issue presented by this petition is whether the BIA failed to properly analyze Cortez's claim that Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662 (9th Cir.2010), constitutes a change in law justifying reconsideration of the BIA's January 26, 2011 decision. In order to demonstrate entitlement to reconsideration based on a change in law, the movant "must show how [the] change in law materially affects [the] prior decision." Matter of O-S-G, 24 I. & N. Dec. 56, 58 (B.I.A.2006). Because the BIA correctly determined that the Ninth Circuit's decision in Perdomo is not binding on the Second Circuit, see Matter of Anselmo, 20 I. & N. Dec. 25, 31 (B.I.A.1989), and, thus, did not materially affect its January 26, 2011 decision, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir.2001).
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 DENIED 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).